Three former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sued the Church in federal court in Utah, claiming it misrepresented the Church’s history and beliefs to solicit tithes. Recognizing the plaintiffs’ claims required the court to decide whether the Church’s religious teachings are “true,” the district court dismissed the case under the church-autonomy doctrine. That doctrine requires judges to respect the autonomy of religious institutions to be free to decide questions of faith, doctrine, and internal governance without court interference.
In a recent published decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. “Plaintiffs want to hold the Church liable for teaching core beliefs that do not align with what Plaintiffs believe to be the historical truths of the religion.” That is precisely what the church-autonomy doctrine forbids: “We conclude that the church autonomy doctrine applies to Plaintiffs’ allegations … because the dispute about the accuracy of the Church’s representations is ecclesiastical.”
This case highlights why courts must not become arbiters of theology. If civil courts could second-guess religious teachings, every faith community in America would face the risk of litigation over core doctrines and practices. Protecting that boundary is essential to safeguarding religious liberty for all.
Read more here: Gaddy v. The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints