Cash Kept from Charities: Deception of the Church of Latter-day Saints

    A former member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (known commonly as Mormons) decided to come out with a claim that stated the organization misrepresented how they used tithing funds, or religiously obligatory member donations. Because James Huntsman had donated millions of dollars to the organization, he was disappointed to find out they were not going to charitable causes, and made claims that the funds were being used on material items at shopping centers and for a life insurance company that was close with the church. He was especially angered because of how the church allegedly reassured its members that the funds were only being used toward morally upright and important causes in the community, that align with Christian values and were his duty to give to. These reassurances were delivered through sermons, official statements, and internal communications, claiming a divine purpose behind each donation. Members were led to believe their contributions would fund humanitarian aid, disaster relief, educational initiatives, etc. The betrayal felt especially heavy for donors like Huntsman, who viewed his financial support as a sacred act of devotion. Because of the perceived deception of the Church of Latter-day Saints, Huntsman sued them and the issue was raised to the Supreme Court level, where he is currently trying the church for fraudulent use of donations. His argument centers on the idea that the church not only mishandled the funds but did so under a false pretense, thus violating the trust of its members and misusing its religious authority for material benefit.

This case is interesting as it questions the implications of the Free Exercise Clause, and especially as it applies to the use of religious funds. If these funds were being used toward secular and non-religious reasons, could the value or sincerity behind the religion be questioned, as even its own leaders do not take it seriously? Or, does the only inherent religious value behind the act of giving a donation lie within having the loyalty and trust to make the donation itself? This debate also brings into question how far religious protections extend when money and legal obligations are involved. The Free Exercise Clause states that every human has the right to freely express their religious convictions without the interference of the government, with the exception of when peace and good order are in jeopardy. The claim that a religious organization is using tithing funds, which are being drawn out of members of the church due to appeals to their morality and religious obligations, not to mention consistently reassured as valuable and upright, is enough to prove a disruption of peace and good order. This level of deception in a long-running religious organization that has a rapport built up with its members, who trust in its convictions so deeply that some donate millions of their own dollars, is a complete violation of the Madisonian principle. In James Madison’s vision for the separation of church and state, religious institutions were to be protected from interference—but not exempt from accountability. This case puts that principle to the test in a very modern context.

A case that reminded me of this one was U.S. v Ballard, where similarly, the sincerity of a religious mailing movement that consistently collected funds from patrons was questioned for its uses and true intentions in obtaining this money. While the court ruled, in this case, that the truth of religious doctrines could not be evaluated, religious leaders could be evaluated for whether or not they sincerely believed what they preached (with the right evidence). Therefore, deception is not blindly accepted under the guides of religion, despite governmental neutrality to unconventional religious beliefs in general. So, under this precedent, if Huntsman has evidence against the Church of Latter-day Saints that supports his initial claim, the sincerity of the religious movement, and therefore the presence of fraudulent behavior, can be evaluated. 

The broader implication is that if the court rules in Huntsman’s favor, it may signal a shift in how religious organizations are legally expected to manage the use of their donations, especially those whose members are being reassured that they are going to a certain moral or religious cause. It could lead to greater financial scrutiny of religious institutions and raise overall expectations for transparency within these institutions, which were not being closely monitored enough in their actions before despite holding the trust of many faithful members. This could create more room for eliminating insincerity and deceit within both long-standing and minority organizations, and aligns with neutrality and lack of bias if all institutions are monitored by the same standard.