The members of the church fail to realize they are not members of anything. They simply are volunteers and donators to a privately held corporation where the president of the church is the only stock holder.

You didn't join anything when you got baptized. If you were a member of the corporation you would own some shares in it. Unless the church starts issuing stock to it's congregation they aren't part of it. They simply donate their money and time to it.

So when the church says you are a member tell them you never were part of it.

Absolutely. IMO, paying tithing is the same as gambling or investing in the stock market, but at least there is some chance you will get returns on your investment with the market or gambling.

Fact checking welcome, as always... Hmmm, another senior moment working at remembering who the current church president is...

Relax Cabbie, I'm sure it's because you slept late and the Folger's hasn't kicked in...

Many non-lawyers (especially ex-Mormon non-lawyers) get angry or indignant that the Mormon church is a one-owner corporation. There are a lot of things to criticize the church about, but this isn't one of them.

In order for any organization - church, club, business - to function in the legal system (own property, hire workers, make contracts) it must be a "legal entity." A natural person (adult) can do these things automatically, but not an organization.

All states have special laws by which such entities can become a "legal entity." Most states provide for partnerships, associations, corporations, and other types.

For a church, most states provide for a special form, usually called a "corporation sole." And most churches organize as a "corporation sole" and include the word "corporation" in their legal name, the name with which they register with the state of registration.

For a chuch to use the word "corporation" in its legal title does not necessarily imply that it is a business, like those listed on the stock exchange. It merely means that it can hold title to its church buildings, hire secretaries, enter into construction contracts, hold copyrights, etc.

One of the differences between a corporation sole and other corporations is that one officer (such as the bishop of a Catholic diocese) IS the corporation. If the person occupying that office is replaced by the church, they notify the state of the replacement.

The LDS church is, in fact, a "corporation sole," meaning it has legal status as a church.

Many non-profit or charitable organizations are also corporations, usually called in the law "non-profit corporations" or "not-for-profit corporations."

Both non-profit corporations and corporations sole may also own interests in for-profit (business) enterprises, and their income from those business are indeed subject to tax, like any business.

- retired lawyer

True there isn't a criticism that the church is legal, the criticism is that legally there is no responsibility towards the folks that think they are members.

Before 1890s there was accountablity and there were actually members of a real organization. But that all changed with Wilford Woodruff, who disorganized the organization and set up something new.

It's like a family who was originally legally married and their children were legal heirs to the estate, then the married couple decided to divorce and write a new will that said that future children get nothing and are illegitimate.

Those illegitimate heirs tend to get really pissed off.

The federal government disorganized the organization in the late 1800s.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. What exactly are the members members of? I guess you can look at the temple as a country club. You have to pay dues to get a membership card. The church on the other hand anyone can come in and warm a seat. So maybe you are a member of the Temple Club but not a member of the church.

There is no legal entity in the US named The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It's a trademark owned by the Corporation of the President. So confirmation was to a trademark?

My, I can't wait for my friend to wake up and smell the coffee. She's a convert and I hope she runs for the hill when she realizes the fraud.

Rubicon, you make this little speech several times a year, and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that people shouldn't resign their membership because they aren't actually members of anything?

This is the same kind of insightful legal analysis you see from anti-vaxers, and people claiming that the income tax is unconstitutional.

You may think that nobody except possibly Nelson is actually a member. The LDS Church disagrees with you. You likely don't care about that. The entire US legal system, along with most if not all other world legal systems recognize that membership. That you should care about.

Just like the income tax deniers, and the "federal reserve notes are not legal tender, and I get paid in federal reserve notes, therefore I have no income, therefore I owe no taxes" gang, your legal opinion really doesn't count for much. The legal court system's opinion does.

You seem to think you are spreading the word on some great insight, and I suppose it is a relatively harmless delusion. But it is a delusion. LDS memberships do actually exist. Resigning does in fact terminate that membership. Telling people you were never a member does not terminate your membership, unless it moves LDS Inc to terminate your membership because they think you are a nut job. I suppose that could work, but it really seems like the long way around.

But it’s good to know if you start your own church, like John Oliver did. It’s on my bucket list.

The only thing that gives the US Dollar any value is people are willing to accept it in trade. In reality there is no difference between a $1 bill and a $100 bill. It's the same paper. What differs is the illusion and as long as enough people accept the illusion then the system works.

The church is no different. Nothing would bust the church more than people waking up and just saying it's just an illusion. That is the point I'm trying to make. When people fuss over getting their membership removed it actually helps the church. It makes them look legitimate. If people just say, I never was a member. The church has no legal recourse. They can't do anything it discredits the church as being anything because all this is brainwashing and illusion and yes our financial system is the same kind of bullshit.

At the end of the day it's who has the big stick. People don't give a damn about laws until someone can drag them to jail or worse. What is the church going to do? Send you to jail? It's laughable. The church is nothing.

In reply to Rubicon's post above, it is really funny that those who think money is an illusion always use that argument to justify not parting with their illusory money. They never ever say "hey, it's not real money, so take whatever you want."

Funny how that works. Seems like they have a very lopsided idea of how illusory money is.

As for your point that not resigning from the church damages it more than resigning, that is nonsense. There is a reason they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into allowing members to resign. They still refuse to call it resigning, though they clearly recognize our right to resign. A resignation is an order an exmember gives to the church, and LDS Inc hates to admit that they are taking orders from mere people. They insist on calling it "name removal", which makes it sound like something you request, which implies they have the right to grant your request, or not.

"nRequesting" ame removal is nonsense. You have the legal right to tell them you are terminating your membership. They have no say in the matter, just like you have no say in the matter if you are a member and they choose to excommunicate you. You can't haul them into court for that, unless of course you resign before they excommunicate you. So, terminating your membership by resignation does have actual real world consequences.

As for not resigning causing them more damage than resigning, I don't think so.

But that's the point, LDS inc claims that everyone is a member that is on their roster, but a member of what?

If there is only one legal heir (Nelson) since 1880s, and everyone else is now illegitimate, Shouldn't we be a little worried/upset?

Before 1880's it was an actual church, legally responsible to it's shareholders/members. There was a physical covenant and contract. The pioneers in Zion were under the impression that they actually owned stock in ZCMI, that a community owned that stock, that somehow went missing to the shareholder during the early 1900's. We are talking of stock worth billions of dollars...

Also They actually voted in Conference, the votes meant something.

(I think Rubicon should continue bringing this up)

The term “member” obviously means different things to different people.
It sounds like it’s being argued that membership in the church, or any organization, should come with some sort of remuneration?
If I become a “sustaining member” of my local public radio station, I don’t get any stock... it’s just a phrase. In the same way being a member of LDS Corp is just a phrase. Resigning is simply for ones own satisfaction. You owe the cult nothing, they owe you nothing. It’s all semantics.