- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Yeah, every mainstream article is calling it stupid and bewildering. Most of this made me instantly scoff. The idea that any of this could even come close to happening with any degree of credibility is ludicrous. The only thing that makes me not instantly dismiss this is the fact that a judge has signed off on it. This is a criminal claim too. He hasn’t “paid” to bring it into court as a civil claim. A British magistrate has agreed that there is a case to answer and has signed the summons. I don’t know how she has been convinced to do it, but something has.
We’ll see. I really don’t know enough about law to know how this all works. I will watch with curiosity.
There are plenty of people with more knowledge of law than me that say it’s not going to work:
mackay11, it’s quite easy to do some simple research and bring a case to a low-level judge who is most likely to sign off on it out of a particular bias (or a hesitancy to throw out something as frivolous). It happens all the time all over the world. Even if I hadn’t read about cases of judge picking, Law & Order (American TV show, if you aren’t aware of it across the pond) taught me the concept.
I’m intrigued by the fact that Phillips apparently draws a straight line between “There was no death on the earth until 6,000 years ago” and being induced to pay tithing. (The whole claim is that these particular lies were told in order to dupe this poor man into paying tithing to the LDS Church.) I’ve sat through an awful lot of talks and lessons on tithing, and that particular idea – and the others he cites – never came up as a reason to pay tithing. We are promised nebulous, nonspecific ‘blessings’ in accordance with paying, but it’s not tied to any of the really arcane points of maybe-doctrine brought up in the lawsuit. More to the point, does Bloor actually have to demonstrate that Monson or agents acting in his stead have ever actually *said* any of those things? Because some of them are pretty out there. I don’t know a lot of Mormons who literally believe every single thing on his list. I’ve never even *heard* of some of them.
And point 7 – “All humans alive today were descended from just two people who lived approximately 6000 years ago” – that’s not unique to us, that belongs to all of Christianity. Heck, pretty much every religion and culture in the world has some kind of creation myth. So who is he going to sue next?
I mean, I’m sure that there is tithing-related fraud going on
somewherein the LDS Church. But this ain’t it. Honestly, my biggest concern is that actions like this reinforce the stereotype among conservative members that people who struggle with and/or leave the Church are lying apostates – and, in this case, deluded modern Korihors. This damages President Uchtdorf’s message that, “It’s not that simple.” I think non-extreme ex-Mormon sites ought to be rejecting this directly and emphatically, since it harms their cause FAR more than it helps. People who struggle with the LDS Church and are sincere in their efforts to make positive change ought to disavow this quickly and forcefully.
Curtis wrote:Honestly, my biggest concern is that actions like this reinforce the stereotype among conservative members that people who struggle with and/or leave the Church are lying apostates – and, in this case, deluded modern Korihors. This damages President Uchtdorf’s message that, “It’s not that simple.”
I think non-extreme ex-Mormon sites ought to be rejecting this directly and emphatically, since it harms their cause FAR more than it helps. People who struggle with the LDS Church and are sincere in their efforts to make positive change ought to disavow this quickly and forcefully.
I agree with this. We could really do without these aggressive types. The last thing we want is to reinforce some members’ persecution complex.
This is the best article I’ve seen on this topic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/05/english-court-summons-head-of-mormon-church-to-answer-charges-that-mormon-religious-claims-are-fraud/ While it will probably get thrown out, the material questions (from a legal standpoint) that I can see are:
1 – the 7 statements that are supposedly church claims all have a good deal of wiggle room. For example, the BOA is usually called an “inspired” translation rather than a “literal” translation. This is one benefit to the statements the church is putting out. It clarifies that the church’s stance isn’t clear! There are conflicting statements throughout the last 150 years from various Mormon leaders on all these topics.
2 – does Monson disbelieve the church’s claims? Obviously, proving this would be difficult, but this is why many believe that Tom Phillips is hunting for secret documents in the church’s archives on this one. Given that the church was buying all sorts of documents (the Hoffman forgeries exploited this), there could be materially damaging documents in the church’s secret archives. Doubtless the Catholic church’s secret archives could take ours in an arm wrestle, but it’s an interesting question. Even if there are damaging documents, they would have to be proven to be legitimate. The church could also squirrel away damaging forgeries or false documents to keep them out of the public eye so that faith is not damaged.
3 – whether the church’s claims are true or not is generally irrelevant because they don’t have to be true or even credible, just believed by its leaders.
As to the outcomes, if the case actually were proven (less and less likely given #1 and #2 above), then worst case, the UK govt could seize the church’s assets in the UK against repayment of tithes to all UK members (class action style). Chances of that happening are incredibly remote. Most likely this will just be either a black eye to the church or we’ll see defenders of religious freedom come out to protect us.
hawkgrrrl wrote:While it will probably get thrown out, the material questions (from a legal standpoint) that I can see are:
1 – the 7 statements that are supposedly church claims all have a good deal of wiggle room. For example, the BOA is usually called an “inspired” translation rather than a “literal” translation. This is one benefit to the statements the church is putting out. It clarifies that the church’s stance isn’t clear! There are conflicting statements throughout the last 150 years from various Mormon leaders on all these topics.
You almost feel like he flipped through Mormon Doctrine and picked out seven of the most ‘out there’ statements he could find.
Not only are none of the statements he presented ever used in conjunction with tithing, they don’t even necessarily represent actual Church doctrine.
Decided to amble over to mormondialogue (pro-LDS apologetics board). This from a poster suggests it’s based on no evidence presented to the judge at all:
Quote:I live in the UK, I’m an active Mormon and I’m a criminal lawyer who has worked for over 25 years in Magistrates’ Courts and this is very unlikely to go anywhere.
This is an attempt at a criminal prosecution. In the UK a criminal prosecution is brought by the prosecutor laying an information – ie making an allegation to the appropriate Court, which is dependent on where the offence is alleged to have been committed. The Court then issues a summons – signed by a Magistrate (a District Judge is simply a paid Magistrate) or by the Clerk to the Justices (a difficult role to describe as it exists no where else but the person in basically employed to proffer legal services to the Magistrates). Usually, this role is delegated to Court legal advisers. Usually, informations are laid by the police and the case is prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (a little like the DA’s office in the USA). However, individuals can bring their own private prosecution. When the information is signed, it is not the evidence that is checked but that the information alleges an actual offence, is within the time limits (if any) and names a real person. There is no decision on its validity. That is a matter for the Court. The particulars of the offence do not matter at this stage – only that it is under the Fraud Act. All you need to do to get the offence right is copy out the words in the section of the Act. BTW, we do not refer to acts of parliament by starting it with the name of the monarch!
All criminal prosecutions start in the Magistrates’ Courts. Fraud is a serious offence and can be sent to a higher Court – the Crown Court. The Magistrates have to decide that their powers of punishment if the Defendant is convicted are insufficient, can’t see that myself, but they might. The Magistrates also have the power to dismiss the charges as malicious. “Higher ups” in Parliament or the Legal system have very little impact on Magistrates! However, the CPS are the National State prosecutors and have the power to take over private prosecutions and often do. The CPS can then withdraw the charges without the consent of the instigator! A possibility in this case.
Initially, Pres Monson does not have to attend so long as he sends lawyers who have instructions about where the case should be tried. He could be extradited – a long process and I don’t know if a private individual can apply for an extradition warrant – I’ve only dealt with European warrants issued by the police. However, I’m sure that Defence lawyers will initially ask for the charges to be dismissed.
As in the USA, the prosecutor must prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, that the statements were false and led directly to the tithe paying. Of course, though stated as facts, they fall into religious belief, not fact. Apparently, documents were served that made a number of statements about more than these individuals eg the amount of tithes received from thousands of people – irrelevant – the case must concentrate on the actions of the individuals mentioned in the charges. A criminal trial has very explicit rules about what will be allowed in, something that non lawyers often get caught out on – they are not the opportunity for you to stand on your own personal soapbox. Also, there is no defence disclosure/discovery. The prosecution can’t demand documents or anything else from the defendant to help them prove their case, so if these people are hoping to get information from the Church, they are going to be disappointed. So the attorney’s online comments quoted above aren’t spot on for the UK.
As this is a private prosecution, and given the Defendant, it will have been considered in more detail than usual, which is why a Magistrate has signed it. However, the Magistrate will not/cannot consider the validity of the evidence. That is a matter for the Court. He will not be presenting the case to the Court. He is not investigating the case and will have nothing further to do with the case. Mr Phillips or his lawyer will need to present the case to the Court, unless the CPS take it over. UK magistrates are not like European magistrates, they don’t investigate cases. They are really a combination of judge and jury in that they decide on the facts and the law in a case, with assistance from their legal advisers. If the information showed a valid offence, he probably felt he had no option but to issue it (though he could have refused). However, I don’t see this getting very far and I doubt it will reach plea stage let alone trial. The documents also strike me as not having been prepared by a Criminal lawyer but I could be wrong. I’ve seen other people bring private prosecutions for a variety of offences, only one or two have ever succeeded, usually for assault.
I also don’t believe the Church published a series of articles which would take months to prepare and approve just because of this summons – how would they even know about its preparation?! Seems paranoid. Or does the Church really have a network of underground spies? Perhaps Mr. Phillips timed his request for a summons to tie in with the series of articles which were coming out?
This will, of course, garner publicity…
Even if he were to be successful in this and win a law suit, I doubt this would have significant ramifications on the church membership. Most members would likely dig their heels in and claim it was the work of Satan fighting against the truth. I could see it polarizing the existing faith crisis community to the point where some would leave and others would join the ranks who are digging their heels in. But that is only if this suit were successful, which is highly unlikely.
Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk
mackay11 wrote:Curtis wrote:Honestly, my biggest concern is that actions like this reinforce the stereotype among conservative members that people who struggle with and/or leave the Church are lying apostates – and, in this case, deluded modern Korihors. This damages President Uchtdorf’s message that, “It’s not that simple.”
I think non-extreme ex-Mormon sites ought to be rejecting this directly and emphatically, since it harms their cause FAR more than it helps. People who struggle with the LDS Church and are sincere in their efforts to make positive change ought to disavow this quickly and forcefully.
I agree with this. We could really do without these aggressive types. The last thing we want is to reinforce some members’ persecution complex.
This “feckless stunt” (perfect description, I thought) hurts us the most. What a shame.
Curtis wrote:Previous comment repeated.
I hope I never get so bitter and warped that I would even contemplate something like this.
Catholicism is HUGE compared to the LDS Church (as is Buddhism and Hinduism) and their religious claims and abuses make the LDS Church’s issues look like kindergarten playground fun, so why isn’t he going after the Pope and other religious leaders?Obvious: He is bitter about his own commitment to the LDS Church over time and appears not to care about global numbers or reach. He’s after blood, and he doesn’t care a bit about how many people he leaves lying in his wake – assuming he leaves anyone in his wake and the case doesn’t die a quiet death. He’s been bragging about what he’s going to do for a while now and been hyping it online obsessively.
I get it. I despise it. I say that about very, very, very few things.
I think your characterization is somewhat off base and shows a degree of bitterness yourself.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Cadence wrote:Curtis wrote:Previous comment repeated.
I hope I never get so bitter and warped that I would even contemplate something like this.
Catholicism is HUGE compared to the LDS Church (as is Buddhism and Hinduism) and their religious claims and abuses make the LDS Church’s issues look like kindergarten playground fun, so why isn’t he going after the Pope and other religious leaders?Obvious: He is bitter about his own commitment to the LDS Church over time and appears not to care about global numbers or reach. He’s after blood, and he doesn’t care a bit about how many people he leaves lying in his wake – assuming he leaves anyone in his wake and the case doesn’t die a quiet death. He’s been bragging about what he’s going to do for a while now and been hyping it online obsessively.
I get it. I despise it. I say that about very, very, very few things.
I think your characterization is somewhat off base and shows a degree of bitterness yourself.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Agree.
Why are we so quick to dismiss TP and these accusations?
If this comes down to financial transparency issues and changes in temple/tithing policies, which I think it will…. and already has… It doesn’t seem so frivolous to me.
I’m surprised so many of you are being so cynical and closed minded. Why not pause and wait and see what happens, there is obviously more to this event than TP has disclosed.
If the church has nothing to hide, this will all blow over…. No big deal. If they do have something to hide… well, apoligize, admit the wrong, and reform.
Yes?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Personally it’s less about bitterness or cynicism. I’m a British doubter. I don’t want Tom to create a perception among my fellow British saints of bunkering down. I don’t want someone fueling the perpetuation of the silly old phrase “you can leave the church but you can’t leave it alone.” Often said with a dollop of smugness as if people like Tom are proving the veracity of the church.
I want there to be room for doubt and the embracing of nuance in my fellow British Mormons. I had seen what appeared to be a creeping tendency in that direction.
What, potentially, Tom has done is to red-flag these 7 issues to the extent that no LDS will touch them. They’ll run from them screaming out of fear of ending up an anti-Mormon.
I embrace your attitude cwald, if I ever leave I just want to down tools and walk away with it with utter apathy. Live and let live. Given that remains a daily possibility I also worry that if this becomes high profile that it boxes me in for another few years. I wouldn’t want the label of being one of the people who stopped attending “in the wake” of some trial.
I’m not saying I’m planning to leave. I just want to retain the option of doing so with dignity and no fuss.
I will, of course, stay glued to my screen as it unfolds, with a partial hope that something significant actually does happen. I suppose that makes me a bit of a hypocrite.
I think what we need to understand about TP is his motivation. From what I have read and heard him say he feels he was part of big fraud that mislead him and his family and those he encouraged to join or stay in the church. He has since completely lost his family when he tried to do why he thought was right. I am not defending his actions, because I am not sure that this is the course I would take but I certainly understand them. We have to realize that not everyone who has problems with the church can nuance their former belief into something more palatable. To many it was true and now it is obviously not. They feel dirty and ashamed that they were so misled. They do have a sense of bitterness, because in many cases the church holds their family hostage. In their mind the church is completely fraudulent and continues to perpetuate a fraud. We should respect this position as much as we want to respect those that choose to walk in and out of Mormonism, because that seems to work for them.
On the face of it his accusations are correct. The points he makes as misleading are in fact misleading and the evidence is clearly in his favor. That does not mean some people do not find value in these beliefs or are fearful to find out their long held beliefs are fiction. But in a black and white world it is either fraud or it is not. That is the world I believe TP and many others live in. It is just not in their nature to rationalize suspect beliefs to fit into their comfort zone. They will take the hit to push what they perceive to be the truth forward. And they will be called every name in the book by those that feel threatened.
I suggest we sit back and see what comes of all of this. Little I suspect but hopefully some transparency on the part of the church.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.