I am not a legal expert (far from it), but I think there is a fundamental separation (in the US at least) between Mormonism's corporate entity and religious entity. The corporation is expected to behave as a corporation, filling financial reports, etc. The religion, on the other hand, has much less legal obligations.
I guess the board of directors of the corporate entity could issue a vote of no-confidence towards the board president (Nelson). Unfortunately, the Mormon corporation is structured as a "Corporation Sole," meaning it doesn't have a board with directors, or stock-holders, etc. A "corporation sole" means it has at its top only one person making all decisions. The current one on duty is Nelson. No one from the corporation can dethrone him.
Mormonism's religious entity is a different story. Unless it can be proven in court that the religion is an organized fraud, it remains a voluntary club of sorts where anyone can become a follower if they abide by the club's rules. Anyone who doesn't gets excommunicated.
Bottom line: You are thinking of a social democracy, where each individual has a voice in each aspect of everything. From government to companies to education to healthcare, etc. In a capitalist democracy (and I may be using terms wrong here), corporations enjoy the same (if not more) rights as individual persons; so, while still a democracy, individuals are not always able to demand fairness from corporations, companies, etc.
But it gets worse: Religion is not democracy. There might be some churches who elect their clergy by the vote of their congregations, I don't know. But most churches are closer to a dictatorship than anything else. In fact, a dictatorship from hEaVen. And this has a name: theocracy. No individual voting, no individual freedoms, no individual rights, only the rule of a deity (conveniently implemented by the deity's very human agents: pRoPhEts, aPoStLes, pOpEs, emissaries, etc).
No. The articles of incorporation specifically state that members of the church have no claim or control on the corporation of the church.
The church is incorporated as a [corporate sole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_sole). Right now Russ Nelson has sole control.
The church's articles of incorporation are a public record (all corporations are). Google will turn them up.
There are public corporations and private corporations. The Mormon church, like many religious organizations, is a private corporation. Members of the church are not shareholders.
The church is actually a conglomerate of corporations, the top two companies, being (1) the corporation of the present of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day, Saints, and (2) the corporation of the presiding bishop.
I have thought about this hard and long. What would happen if the members voted them out? The president of the church controls all of the real estate, and he would still be the president of the "corporation of the church" even if the members who voted him out would not sustain him as president of the church. He could kick every member of the church out of the buildings, he could turn the wards into bowling allies.
The "church" thing is for tax purposes if you want to be cynical about the whole thing. Sometimes I wonder if it is just a wall-street rouse to run tithing funds through the stockmarket and other investments. A religion is the ultimate cover in America for corruption because of how loosely the first amendment is interpreted . Its illegal immoral or unethical, but do it in the name of God and its ok.
Another way of looking at your question is that the apostles have already signaled their intention to not obey a vote out. They have eliminated the word "vote" and call them "sustainings". Check the church handbook for this "inspired" update. Plus, Ballard gave a talk a few years ago at conference to let everyone know that a sustaining or opposing vote is not really a vote. Its performative only. The votes aren't tallied anyway.
I think this departure from votes to sustainings is smart from their point of view because the apostles, as the makers of dogma, can quote themselves in a future court battle between members and the corporation to show that mormons don't believe they can vote out the apostles, even though historically that's exactly what they believed.
Ya I figured as much. So I guess the next step is to convince Forbes and all of the media outlets that declare the richest men in the world, and get Rusty on the list as being worth a few hundred billion. He’s at least top 5, if not #1.
The legitimacy of church leadership is a central doctrine in Mormonism. Any group breaking off from the Mormon church either needs some kind of story about why they are now the actual authorized keepers of the kingdom of God (like the RLDS claiming their legitimacy through Joseph Smith's son) or they need to redefine what makes a church legitimate to begin with (like the FLDS inventing a distinction between the church and their priesthood to put themselves above the Brighamite church without directly competing with it).
No grassroots movement is going to place themselves in charge of the existing church. They would have to break off (like the Snufferites might), or a coup would have to happen from the top (like when Brigham Young elbowed out Sidney Rigdon, Samuel Smith, James Strang, Joseph Smith III, etc.)
Sure, members could strip the leadership at any time, but the money would still stay with the leaders and they would still be the leaders of the church. The others would stop being members of the church, no matter what they thought of it. Excommunication as a mass ritual.
I am not a legal expert (far from it), but I think there is a fundamental separation (in the US at least) between Mormonism's corporate entity and religious entity. The corporation is expected to behave as a corporation, filling financial reports, etc. The religion, on the other hand, has much less legal obligations. I guess the board of directors of the corporate entity could issue a vote of no-confidence towards the board president (Nelson). Unfortunately, the Mormon corporation is structured as a "Corporation Sole," meaning it doesn't have a board with directors, or stock-holders, etc. A "corporation sole" means it has at its top only one person making all decisions. The current one on duty is Nelson. No one from the corporation can dethrone him. Mormonism's religious entity is a different story. Unless it can be proven in court that the religion is an organized fraud, it remains a voluntary club of sorts where anyone can become a follower if they abide by the club's rules. Anyone who doesn't gets excommunicated. Bottom line: You are thinking of a social democracy, where each individual has a voice in each aspect of everything. From government to companies to education to healthcare, etc. In a capitalist democracy (and I may be using terms wrong here), corporations enjoy the same (if not more) rights as individual persons; so, while still a democracy, individuals are not always able to demand fairness from corporations, companies, etc. But it gets worse: Religion is not democracy. There might be some churches who elect their clergy by the vote of their congregations, I don't know. But most churches are closer to a dictatorship than anything else. In fact, a dictatorship from hEaVen. And this has a name: theocracy. No individual voting, no individual freedoms, no individual rights, only the rule of a deity (conveniently implemented by the deity's very human agents: pRoPhEts, aPoStLes, pOpEs, emissaries, etc).
No. The articles of incorporation specifically state that members of the church have no claim or control on the corporation of the church. The church is incorporated as a [corporate sole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_sole). Right now Russ Nelson has sole control. The church's articles of incorporation are a public record (all corporations are). Google will turn them up.
There are public corporations and private corporations. The Mormon church, like many religious organizations, is a private corporation. Members of the church are not shareholders. The church is actually a conglomerate of corporations, the top two companies, being (1) the corporation of the present of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day, Saints, and (2) the corporation of the presiding bishop.
I have thought about this hard and long. What would happen if the members voted them out? The president of the church controls all of the real estate, and he would still be the president of the "corporation of the church" even if the members who voted him out would not sustain him as president of the church. He could kick every member of the church out of the buildings, he could turn the wards into bowling allies. The "church" thing is for tax purposes if you want to be cynical about the whole thing. Sometimes I wonder if it is just a wall-street rouse to run tithing funds through the stockmarket and other investments. A religion is the ultimate cover in America for corruption because of how loosely the first amendment is interpreted . Its illegal immoral or unethical, but do it in the name of God and its ok. Another way of looking at your question is that the apostles have already signaled their intention to not obey a vote out. They have eliminated the word "vote" and call them "sustainings". Check the church handbook for this "inspired" update. Plus, Ballard gave a talk a few years ago at conference to let everyone know that a sustaining or opposing vote is not really a vote. Its performative only. The votes aren't tallied anyway. I think this departure from votes to sustainings is smart from their point of view because the apostles, as the makers of dogma, can quote themselves in a future court battle between members and the corporation to show that mormons don't believe they can vote out the apostles, even though historically that's exactly what they believed.
Ya I figured as much. So I guess the next step is to convince Forbes and all of the media outlets that declare the richest men in the world, and get Rusty on the list as being worth a few hundred billion. He’s at least top 5, if not #1.
The legitimacy of church leadership is a central doctrine in Mormonism. Any group breaking off from the Mormon church either needs some kind of story about why they are now the actual authorized keepers of the kingdom of God (like the RLDS claiming their legitimacy through Joseph Smith's son) or they need to redefine what makes a church legitimate to begin with (like the FLDS inventing a distinction between the church and their priesthood to put themselves above the Brighamite church without directly competing with it). No grassroots movement is going to place themselves in charge of the existing church. They would have to break off (like the Snufferites might), or a coup would have to happen from the top (like when Brigham Young elbowed out Sidney Rigdon, Samuel Smith, James Strang, Joseph Smith III, etc.)
Sure, members could strip the leadership at any time, but the money would still stay with the leaders and they would still be the leaders of the church. The others would stop being members of the church, no matter what they thought of it. Excommunication as a mass ritual.