They have to fight it and fight hard. Can you imagine if precedent was set that they had to return any money that someone had paid tithing on while they were breaking the law, committing fraud, not paying alimony or child support, bankrupting, etc. Geez, we're talking Mormons here. The church would have to cough up a hellofalot of moola.

The church really put the pressure on me to give them 10% of my kids child support.

This has to be the weirdest thing I've ever seen the Church do. I love it. Maybe the universe keeps setting up more outrageous scenarios to show TSCC for what it is.

I don't think this story is going away. It's way too juicy and TSCC has exhausted its goodwill in the media. Fresh meat.

Just imagine all those Mormons in bankruptcy who paid the Church rather than their creditors. Yeah, let loose the hounds of hell.

Very good points.

If they are forced to give back these funds, it would set a very, very cool precedent.

Damn, I've gone through all my popcorn.

but, but, they received the donations 'in good faith'

Maybe the SEC thought the church would WANT to give back the money once it was revealed it was all ill-gotten gains.

But no way: green is green in COB's eyes!

So.... the church "did not exchange reasonably equivalent value for theses charitable contributions "

Basically $239,775.00 will not buy your salvation?

And the years of church attendance, participation, blessings etc aren't worth a quarter million dollars?

Hmmmm... Could you be a professional poker player and not have to pay tithing because all the money you earned was from 'gambling'? Would a bishop tell you he couldn't give you a TR if that's how you made your living?

Did Johnny Miller pay tithing? Winning at golf is as much a game of chance as Texas Hold'em...

I don't see why not. Hedge Fund brokers and Stock Brokers are just doing "legal" gambling; they're expected to pay tithing.

Also when the "House" loses (i.e. Beneficial Life [which became Beneficial Investments]) during the finance crisis of 1998, the church paid $600 mil to keep it from collapsing. Don't know if was considered a Business Loan or not since Beneficial was part of the For Profit arm of the corporation.

Quote: "In their reply, church attorneys state a number of defenses, including: 'It would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution for the court to assess the value of personal and spiritual benefits received by Curtis and Michelle DeYoung, if any, in connection with donations made by them to the church.'

Any damages caused by the donations were the result of the conduct of people over whom the church had no control or responsibility, the attorneys wrote."

I will assess the value of the personal and spiritual benefits provided by the LDS Church: Zero

I am not a lawyer, but this line:

* The "church did not exchange reasonably equivalent value for these charitable contributions."

seems to be the crux of the matter. My guess is that there is a law about what stolen money can be directly recovered by the government and what can't. The government doesn't want to frighten businesses by going after them when they have innocently and legitimately sold something to a person who paid with stolen money. Instead, the government can recover what the thief purchased with the stolen money.

However, the government does want to be able to go after money (or other items of value) given as "gifts". Thus the wording about exchange for reasonably equivalent value: there is no such exchange if something is given as a gift. Tithing, of course, is a donation given to the church without tangible benefit to the giver. I don't see how any reasonable court could consider that an exchange for something of reasonably equivalent value. "Eternal blessings" are not something that the government can seize and auction off to compensate the original victims of the crime.

I think the church is screwed on this one. I'm looking forward to watching the PR nightmare unfold.

"Tithing, of course, is a donation given to the church without tangible benefit to the giver."

How about not being set fire to?

When I was active in the church, occasionally someone would ask the hypothetical question in Sunday school, seminary etc., "If the church received tithing donations from stolen money, what would the church do?"

We were always assured that the church wanted no part of illegal activity and if it was known that the money was acquired dishonestly, it would immediately be returned.

I'm embarrassed to admit that up until the moment I read this article, I actually still believed that. I should have known. Gee, what do you know, another lie.