... teaching.
In the late 1960s-early 70s, was there a teaching or doctrine that 'good' Mormons did not sue in court?
A still-mormon niece insists I am wrong, or that it was a regional (Midwest) error. I'd really like to know if anyone remembers it, and in which states and/or at which levels.
Thank you sincerely to all responders in advance, and to all readers.

I’m old enough, and I was active during those years. For what it’s worth, I don’t recall ever hearing that from the pulpit or in a classroom.

In the late 60's-early 70's I was graduating from high school and serving two of the darkest years of my life in New England under Paul Dunn's direction. I don't recall any church directions about not using the courts for sueage. Jesus, did I just make up a new word? Sorry, I can't help you here.

Hey, you and 'sueage' made me laugh, and that's _always_ a help.

In the 80s, a church member was building a house using another church member as the contractor. They had a disagreement and the member asked the bishop to get involve. The member said that was common in years past that the bishop would be a common judge in Israel and would settle civil disputes.

I do not know if this was common but it was discussed. The bishop was wise and stayed out of the dispute.

Yes, civil disputes are often handled by the relevant religious authorities in orthodox Judaism and in Islam. This belief could certainly be relevant to my question.

but I heard it. I think it had something to do with forgiving others.

Yes, I heard it in the early 70s in Southern California. Good Mormons avoided the courts of the land.

In fact, our stake got a new building and sold the old one to another denomination.
They did not pay up for the longest time but our members remarked with pride that our church did not sue anyone.

It's a Biblical precept that Christians should not settle their grievances in public courts (1 Cor. 6)

Whether or not Mormons ever followed this principle is beyond me.

I’m 72, grew up active in Chicago and once thought of going into law. I went on a mission to California, graduated from BYU... all by 1970, so I think I was pretty good on doctrines of that time period. Never heard that it was against Church teachings to go to court to settle a dispute. Think about it, BYU started a law school. Maybe in the rural areas of Utah such ideas were local, but I don’t believe there was any official policies or doctrines along those ideas.

It is the "doctrine" of pretty much every corporation ever that thou shalt not sue the corporation. Often they will put that in contractual form, requiring that any disputes must be settled by arbitration. You know all those things that you click "I agree" without reading? Read one sometime.

So yes, if you sue LDS Inc there is likely to be a whisper campaign that you are completely unreasonable and not a very nice person, and you should have just worked it out with the bishop or SP. it's even possible that all that is true, but true or not, TBMs are likely to side with LDS Inc.

I also was raised in So. Calif. and recall this topic coming up a couple times. I doubt it was official- nothing higher than my bishop or sirloin president yammering in a talk.

This was late 60s when people seemed to be starting to sue over anything.


I believe the rationale involved:

-Don't run to or involve lawyers since bishops are supposed to be the ones consulted first about any problem.

-Discouragement against getting any ideas about suing the church. Remember Mormons spend a lot of time with other Mormons, activities and on church property.

-Avoiding taking advantage (greedy people trying to sue to get money).


This was long before BYU had a law school. I guess they figured out people are going to consult lawyers and not just the church.

Sort of off-subject, I couldn't figure out what you meant by sirloin president but after some thoughts and prayers, I figured it out. Pretty funny!

I think the further back you go the more prevalent the teaching of not suing mormons existed.

I know my grandparents were adamantly against it. My neighbor had her father killed by a car in the early 40s and her family refused to sue for damages.

Also my aunt was owed a significant sum. She refused to sue. This was the 20s.

About the same time another relative had work done on his house. It was so bade he had to have it redone. He refused to sue.

I know I was taught in the 60s you couldn't sue the church. I remember being in shock when a friend sued the church and won.

The "teaching" while not scripture as far as I know may have stemmed from the hundreds of suits brought against Joseph and the subsequent isolationism of Brigham's time.

Well it seems like you’ve all decided to change the question to , “ Should Mormons sue the Church or other Mormons?” From the original OP question, “Was it doctrine that you shouldn’t take grievances to court?”. Big difference. Oh well,

People are sharing what they know or remember. It's all related, so it's useful to me, the OP. I can easily see how 'don't sue the Church' became, with typical mormon revisionism, 'we're following biblical precedent: take your problems to the bishop and don't sue other mormons' and then in some areas, 'we're being even more biblical/Christian, we don't sue'. Heartless covers all of these in one post.

Heartless, would you mind sharing which state or general area of the country these events occurred in?
Your post is most helpful.

Davis, weber, morgan and box elder counties, northern Utah.

i thought it was always take your problems to the bishop. its changed now to "sue the bastards"

My Mormon father always said that law suits were a bad thing, until he won one and got paid. Then it was moot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2019 04:18PM by donbagley.

My TBM ex told me that you weren't allowed to sue if you were LDS Then he proceeded to sue the s*** out of 3 individuals just during our 10 year marriage.

My mom had a legal dispute after an incident that involved her HT damaging her vehicle on his property. The HT went to the BP and told him that he was in a legal dispute and could not serve as her HT.

Poof!!!

The following Sunday, a member of the BP informed my mom that she had been assigned a new HT.

Brigham Young didn't like lawyers or medical doctors. In early Utah he encouraged members to go to the church ecclesiastical courts to settle disputes.

Then, with the Utah War, the federal government kicked BY out of the governor's office. Eventually federal officials took over the territorial government. BY still encouraged members to settle their disputes in the church courts.

Eventually Young needed real lawyers--for example when he faced wife Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young in a divorce suit. He allowed his nephew and grandson to go get real legal training in the east. As the federal government cracked down on polygamy, real lawyers were needed to fight federal cases. Still, the ecclesiastical courts were important to settle local disputes.

Jumping forward to the 1970s: In our Southern California ward there was a dispute between a local businessman and one of his employees who left to start his own business using some technology he gained on the job with the first businessman. Yes, a legal dispute ensued. The employee who started his new business was married to the daughter of a GA, who came to So Cal to work on settling the matter. DH was a young law graduate at the time and got involved in the whole mess.

I don't think the original business owners were too happy about how it all turned out. Their employee went on to have a very successful business career. We did hear, however, a rumor that one of the things he hoped for most when he moved back to Utah was that he would be called as a GA. That never happened. One of his sons, however, went on to have an interesting political career, still ongoing.

I do remember a number of cases where members sued the church. There was a man with some cherry orchards in Utah--I don't know how that eventually turned out, but it did get coverage on 60 Minutes a long time ago.

I don't remember it ever being preached when I was still active in the 60s and 70s that members shouldn't go to the secular law to settle differences. I think it was more confidential, behind the scenes, encouragement.

There are so many Mormons who are lawyers as a profession that I don't think that advice was followed much, if at all.

If anything, they would take more pride at how well they can screw each other over.

From "The Early Church and the Legal Profession" by James H.
Backman (professor of law at BYU Law School):

"Furthermore, Church courts had, by necessity,
ruled on secular matters since the early 1830s.
Generally, prominent Church leaders were
assigned, without monetary recompense, to
provide counsel and discipline to Church
members and to adjudicate in member-to-member
controversies. Secular disputes were
very much a part of Church court jurisdiction and
this would continue for decades. Also, in contrast
to the litigious attitude that was prevalent across
the country, Latter-day Saints were discouraged
from suing each other in the civic courts, on fear
of falling into disfavor with the Church.
Generally, suing in the civic courts was deemed
to be un-Christian. Church leaders preached
forgiveness and expected members to quietly
resolve their own disputes or to seek arbitration
within a Church court setting."

www.jrcls.org/publications/perspectives/backman%20early.lds.attorneys.jan9.04.pdf