LDS church to reveal total net worth?

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

as it was explained on CB, if a UPS driver runs a red light and hits you, you are not likely to only sue the driver. You will sue UPS as well, because the driver was an agent of UPS.

Thus it could be construed the home teacher was an agent of the church.

I don't know if this is sound legal thinking or not, however.

That is precisely legal thinking, to go after the deepest pockets you can find. The driver was probably judgment-proof (aka had no money) so they went after the corporate empire. Assume the driver was not in a UPS truck but was driving his own car; the lawyer would have gone after his auto insurance company for the maximum amount in his policy.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

That is precisely legal thinking, to go after the deepest pockets you can find. The driver was probably judgment-proof (aka had no money) so they went after the corporate empire. Assume the driver was not in a UPS truck but was driving his own car; the lawyer would have gone after his auto insurance company for the maximum amount in his policy.

If the UPS driver was acting within the course and scoipe of his employment he would be able to pass through his liability to his employer. IOW, it was always UPS' obligation. If someone hires you to do somethign and in the course of doing it you injure someone else, the person hiring you is responsible for your actions.

[SeattleUte]

I bet they don't want to reveal the net worth and explode the myth that the LDS Church has staggering wealth. I bet people might be surprised at how relatively modest the wealth is.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I bet they don't want to reveal the net worth and explode the myth that the LDS Church has staggering wealth. I bet people might be surprised at how relatively modest the wealth is.

I struggle to disagree with this statement except they could care less about the so called myth.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It isn't necessarily garbage.

The legal theory is as follows:

The LDS church is respected by its members. The church leaders assign the members home teachers. The members are asked to let the home teachers into the house. The home teachers are set up by the church as being moral and helpful to the families they teach.

One of the home teachers then used the church position to sexually abuse a child in the home. Without the church position, the home teacher would not have had the access to the child or the trust of the family that he did have which enabled him to abuse the child.

It isn't all that strange if you think about it.

What is strange in this case, at least, is that the home teacher was a friend of the family long before he became a home teacher. The abuse allegedly occurred 2 times a week for years (which would be a lot of home teaching visits). Even if the home teaching played a part in this case, I have to think it was a small part and the abuse would have occurred even if the guy wasn't their home teacher.

Okay, I see it now. Negligence on the part of the church created a potentially dangerous situation.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by All-American

Okay, I see it now. Negligence on the part of the church created a potentially dangerous situation.

could this mean that the home teacher program would have to be stopped?


<please let it be true>

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

could this mean that the home teacher program would have to be stopped?


<please let it be true>

Don't tease me like that.

[Indy Coug]

Do you believe that the eradication of home teching would be an overall positive thing for the church?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Do you believe that the eradication of home teching would be an overall positive thing for the church?

Boo yah! No more forced friendships!

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Do you believe that the eradication of home teching would be an overall positive thing for the church?

it would be for me