President Monson Issued A Court Summons? Is This For Real?

[Kenngo1969]

... Stop or you will have to be removed too.

Okey-doke!

[Kenngo1969]

Hat-tip to Dan Peterson, whose post on his own blog alerted me to the post on UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh's blog regarding this case: 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/.  Justice Jackson's dissent in a roughly-analogous U.S. case, as excerpted by Professor Volokh in the foregoing link, is well worth a read.  Any English Judge who is charged with adjudicating the summons brought by Phillips would do well to pay keen attention to Justice Jackson's words.

[flameburns623]

I wanted to clarify that I had to activate a long-forgotten and long-dormant screen name in order to reactivate this one. I am "InactiveLDS141", although I obviously am not LDS at all any longer. Anyhow, I am the same one who some of you may periodically have seen on Catholic Answers, usually calling for greater 'fair play' from my fellow-Catholics when dealing with LDS topics. Like the one currently on-the-table.

[canard78]

honestly though how many members would know about this or Mormon think? I would be VERY surprised if anyone here knew of this whole fuss

 

MormonThink will also get a huge surge in the google rankings.

 

Having high traffic, respected websites (times, telegraph, usatoday etc) link to MormonThink will be a boost to their rankings. Having them link to MT from an article with phrases like "Book of Abraham translation" or "Book of Mormon translation" etc will mean that MT will appear higher up the search results for those phrases.

 

Assuming this never goes to trial (which I do) then the gain made by MT will be the longer term. People will continue searching those phrases far longer than the articles continue to be read or the case is talked about. There will be a much higher volume of people searching those phrases than reading those articles. If MT is appearing 'above the fold' (in the first 5-6 results) then they have had a big "win" from this summons, whatever the trial result.

 

I'm not celebrating that. I'm no fan of MT.

[canard78]

It is already a win for the church. This is not actually bad publicity. I can see mormons going on SkyNews to explain about the church. To explain the tithe principle, the faith and how the book of mormon came to be. Mormons are known to be good people. his publicity will be a win. We also need to understand that the church is actually growing in the london area. This may be quite unsettling for some more virulent exmormons there.

 

Really? CRF please.

[flameburns623]

MormonThink will also get a huge surge in the google rankings.

Having high traffic, respected websites (times, telegraph, usatoday etc) link to MormonThink will be a boost to their rankings. Having them link to MT from an article with phrases like "Book of Abraham translation" or "Book of Mormon translation" etc will mean that MT will appear higher up the search results for those phrases.

Assuming this never goes to trial (which I do) then the gain made by MT will be the longer term. People will continue searching those phrases far longer than the articles continue to be read or the case is talked about. There will be a much higher volume of people searching those phrases than reading those articles. If MT is appearing 'above the fold' (in the first 5-6 results) then they have had a big "win" from this summons, whatever the trial result.

I'm not celebrating that. I'm no fan of MT.

Pope Benedict had some sort of summons along similar lines several years back. Folks barely remember it and I doubt if anti-Catholic or atheist groups experienced any long term boost from whatever happened. The MormonThink site will experience only passing benefit if any at all, IMHO.

Here's an article referencing what I was talking about:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/world/europe/hague-court-declines-inquiry-into-church-abuse-cover-up.html

Edited February 7, 2014 by flameburns623

[sunstoned]

You seriously want Pres Monson to have an Abinadi moment? You realize that Abinadi's moment ended with him being burnt at the stake right?

 

But you are right. This will ultimately be a win for the Church. Everything turns into a win for the Church.

I am not sure this is completely true.  The whole prop 8 thing didn't end that well for the Church.

[Kenngo1969]

I am not sure this is completely true.  The whole prop 8 thing didn't end that well for the Church.

OK.  How is the Church taking an unpopular social and legal position, vigorously defending it, and offending those who feel their rights are violated by that position, in any way analogous to Phillips suing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints essentially in an effort to get it to prove or to retract its truth claims?  Thanks in advance.

[sheilauk]

Hat-tip to Dan Peterson, whose post on his own blog alerted me to the post on UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh's blog regarding this case: 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/.  Justice Jackson's dissent in a roughly-analogous U.S. case, as excerpted by Professor Volokh in the foregoing link, is well worth a read.  Any English Judge who is charged with adjudicating the summons brought by Phillips would do well to pay keen attention to Justice Jackson's words.

This is a well thought out judgement.  I believe it could be applied to UK law.  However, I don't think that any UK judge will even read it and certainly not magistrates.  I haven't looked into whether there are any UK judgements that might be referred to.  As the lowest Courts in the land, the Magistrates and Crown Courts can interprete evidence re the facts but can only apply the law (ie follow judgements from the UK's Court of Appeal and Supreme Court).  They don't make law.

[Tacenda]

I read a quote in an article, and I may be late to the game here and it's been said, but Phillips is more out to prove criminal intent in that the church sends out a trained missionary force to bring in tithing money and the product/religion they're selling isn't completely honest about what it will mean for the customer/investigator. That in order for them to attain the highest kingdom they must pay 10% of their earnings. And they aren't fully aware of the products/church's beliefs that may be untrue or not based on factual occurrences. I'll c/p the quote as soon as I'm at a computer.  ETA:  Here is the quote...

 

“The underlying premise for Tom Phillips’ complaint is basically this: Young salespeople are being carefully groomed and trained to go out and spread demonstrable untruths among the British public in order to persuade them to pay over significant sums of money to a corporation. The transactions depend upon acceptance by individuals of certain “truth claims” which must be received on the basis of partial information presented. If members of the public were to be told the whole truth and still decided they would join up and pay up, that of course would be entirely legitimate. However, when the whole truth is deliberately concealed in order to project a false impression, and money exchanges hands, that is fraud… according to the 2006 Fraud Act, which is the relevant piece of legislation in this case.” -Christopher Ralph (plaintiff in case of summons 2)

Edited February 7, 2014 by Tacenda

[sheilauk]

I believe I've read something similar in comments to articles.  However, if that is his contention, he won't get far as that's not what the charge states and you can't "move the goalposts" once the charge is laid.

[ALarson]

The two men involved in the lawsuit  (Steve Bloor and Chris Ralph) posted a joint statements today:

 

"JOINT STATEMENT concerning summonses served on Thomas Spencer Monson:

This present case is Tom Phillips’ initiative. However, we were invited by him last December to submit to the District Judge letters outlining our own situations. Perhaps, in view of the many ideas which have been flying about since the news of the summonses broke, we could first state what this legal action, in our view, is NOT about:

It is NOT an attack on ordinary faithful Mormons. We have been long enough in those ranks to understand their outlook, and their need to believe in something to which they are committing their lives, and we also know only too well the pain of discovering, before we were ready to, the harsh realities of Mormon history.

It is NOT per se an attack on Mormonism as a belief system. We believe that as long as people are first made aware of all of the relevant historical facts which ought to inform their decision making, it becomes solely their choice and their business if they wish to hand over their money, time and efforts to the LDS church. When comprehensive disclosure becomes the normal practice, we will find no fault. We accept that some will choose to believe whatever they will, despite mountains of contrary evidence, and that is their inalienable right.

NOR, as far as we are concerned, is this a personal vendetta against Thomas Monson. We do not know him, and he has never met us. Unfortunately, he happens to be the man at this point who occupies the Church President’s office, and so the summonses have been served upon him. On a personal basis we feel compassion for a man of his advanced years, allegedly not in the best of health, who has recently lost his wife. He has been part of our Mormon culture. We always enjoyed seeing him wiggle his ears to entertain the children. It is a rare gift. We feel no personal animosity towards him.

This is NOT being done out of anger, but out of concern for the many who otherwise, will perhaps one day feel hurt and betrayed, as we presently do.

This action is being taken over what we consider to be unethical and fraudulent practices. Our view is based upon our own experiences, and also those of others within the Mormon community. These practices are approved and implemented by the church hierarchy. Our argument is therefore with that system and whoever is ultimately responsible for implementing such practices.

When members of the church are formally taught from childhood that they will only be with their families in the next life if they pay a minimum of 10% of their income to the church, (tithing being a requirement of entering the temple, where the eternal sealing of families occurs), a pattern of lifelong financial sacrifice is established. We have been taught that all hope of remaining with our loved ones in the next life, is contingent upon a lifelong monetary commitment to the church, and we have been led to believe that the keys to this eternal sealing are vested in the President of the church, currently Thomas Monson, who has authority to grant or dissolve such unions. We have been repeatedly instructed by those in church authority that God requires us to pay tithing before attending to any other household expenditure, such as rent, food, fuel or clothing.

It follows that those who default on payments, start to fear that they will lose their loved ones in the eternities. In certain cases known to us, defaulting tithe-payers descend into a state of despondency, feeling utterly worthless, sometimes losing the respect and confidence of their family members who depend upon them to be obedient to the law of tithing. In many cases obedience is accomplished only through fear and coercion, and the fear is induced by constant reference to and emphasis upon the LDS scriptures. Yet those scriptures themselves fail the tests of historical authenticity. A growing body of evidence, (not disclosed at present to the average tithe-payer), clearly points to them as being the work of Joseph Smith, and his contemporaries, rather than texts of ancient origin. 

We contend that anyone faced with making a demanding financial commitment to the LDS church, deserves first to be presented with the full evidence concerning LDS truth claims, so that they may make up their minds without being misled. In the UK, such onerous financial commitments are usually undertaken with appropriate warnings and additional information, otherwise they are deemed “mis-sold”. We believe that any person seeking to join the LDS church in Britain, and all British members wishing to place their trust in the family sealing powers claimed for the LDS temple, first ought to be told, at the very least, why The Book of Abraham is not accepted by the rest of the world as an authentic translation, and why The Book of Mormon has much more in common with a 19th century novel than it has with 1600 year old Native American artefacts; they should also be informed of the real reasons which led to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, including the shocking details of Joseph Smith’s polygamous and polyandrous extra-marital unions, in the name of God, with women and girls, some as young as 14.

If, knowing these details, candidates choose to proceed with their baptisms or temple ordinances, none will later be able to claim, as we now do, that they have been deceived. At present however, that is very much not the situation, for most tithe-paying temple-attending members have little or no idea about the true history of their religion, or the profound lack of evidence supporting many of their tenets.

We would like to see the church admit that it has erred grossly for many years in neglecting to address these matters openly and honestly as a matter of routine. We feel it should repent of its failings, apologising for misleading its members in the past, encouraging them in turn to mislead others in their missionary and teaching assignments. We would like to see the church taking steps to educate its members and prospective members fully in accordance with the historical record. We would also like to see full openness and accountability in terms of financial accounting and LDS archival holdings. We would like it to provide sensitive counselling and care for those who lose their faith when they discover the uncomfortable realities. There should be no more labelling of such members as “faithless”, “dissidents” or “apostates” - as though there was something wrong with people having a desire to seek out the truth. Possibly the church leaders could work in combination with those of us who have already trodden this difficult path, so that rehabilitation into the wider world of belief choices would become smoother and less traumatic for spiritual victims of the system.

We are also anxious to see the church offer assurances about the position with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of members and former members who now feel, as we do, that our tithing and other offerings were obtained by the church under false pretenses. For every pound paid to the church by LDS members in the UK who, (following leadership counsel), have availed themselves of Deeds of Covenant and Gift Aid, £0.20 has been added by the British Taxpayer to the church’s bank accounts. The sum paid out by HMRC in this connection must now amount to tens of millions of pounds. It is understood that in most cases the resulting tax rebates made to individuals, were handed over to the church at its request. We seek an assurance from the church therefore, that in the event that at some future time these payments made by HMRC will be deemed to have been fraudulently obtained, the LDS church will offer immunity to those individuals, and ensure that such sums as were rebated will be returned with the due interest to HMRC.

Finally we hope one day to see a more compassionate church, in which those of us who still retain through habit something of a Mormon identity, may find acceptance within the LDS community, no matter what our perceived deficiencies or peculiarities or orientations might be, being valued simply because we place a high value on objective truth.

Steve Bloor
Chris Ralph
7th February 2014"

[Grudunza]

"We have been repeatedly instructed by those in church authority that God requires us to pay tithing before attending to any other household expenditure, such as rent, food, fuel or clothing."

That's exactly wrong... We are not instructed in any specific way about how to pay tithing. 10% of our increase is to be interpreted by each individual in their own way, between them and God, and they cannot be held in any kind of disfavor if they feel that those types of essential expenses should be paid before calculating their "increase."

If particular church members like bishops or missionaries have instructed otherwise, they shouldn't, but official church statements about tithing have been pretty consistent about that, and I recall a recent General Conference talk reaffirming that position.

So the WHOLE basis of their lawsuit, at least according to the above message, is completely without merit. Of course I knew that, anyway, but that's really an odd thing to get so hung up about and focus on, when they have it so obviously wrong.

[ALarson]

"We have been repeatedly instructed by those in church authority that God requires us to pay tithing before attending to any other household expenditure, such as rent, food, fuel or clothing."

That's exactly wrong... 

Not really and there are many, many statements such as this one made in General Conference and in print  regarding tithing: 

 

"One of the first things a bishop must do to help the needy is ask them to pay their tithing. Like the widow, if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing."

 

 I'm not saying that I agree with everything in the joint statement above, but this one is not hard to supply evidence showing this is stated by the leaders.

[Grudunza]

Well, I don't disagree that some leaders have made statements to that effect, but the official church position is that we have our own individual discernment as far as what "increase" should mean as compared to our expenses, and that has also been reaffirmed many times by church leaders and in Conference. So there should be no basis for concluding that the other statements are the ones the Church position on tithing is based on, when a cursory search should point to the correct and official position (i.e., tithing increase/expenses are a personal accounting).

If he wants to sue about there being some confusion and misunderstanding about tithing by some members and leaders, and that some have the *opinion* that tithing should be paid on gross instead of net, or whatever... sure, there's some basis for that, but not as a blanket offense by the Church.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Grudunza

[BlueDreams]

Not really and there are many, many statements such as this one made in General Conference and in print  regarding tithing: 

 

"One of the first things a bishop must do to help the needy is ask them to pay their tithing. Like the widow, if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing."

 

 I'm not saying that I agree with everything in the joint statement above, but this one is not hard to supply evidence showing this is stated by the leaders.

True, but it's also giving only half the picture....such as if you don't have enough money for food, you can use the bishop's warehouse and various other resources provided by the church to help in financially tough times. I haven't finished reading the statement, but this is my major problem in general with it: they only give a slither of the story/truth of the LDS faith and then propping it up as the whole enchilada. I'll mention more when I have more time to read it.

 

With luv,

BD 

[ALarson]

True, but it's also giving only half the picture....such as if you don't have enough money for food, you can use the bishop's warehouse and various other resources provided by the church to help in financially tough times. I haven't finished reading the statement, but this is my major problem in general with it: they only give a slither of the story/truth of the LDS faith and then propping it up as the whole enchilada. I'll mention more when I have more time to read it.

 

With luv,

BD 

I agree.  But there is ample evidence and statements supporting their claim on this.  I'm sure that the church will supply evidence to prove the other half of the story too.

[Buzzard]

The two men involved in the lawsuit  (Steve Bloor and Chris Ralph) posted a joint statements today:

 

It is NOT per se an attack on Mormonism as a belief system. We believe that as long as people are first made aware of all of the relevant historical facts which ought to inform their decision making, it becomes solely their choice and their business if they wish to hand over their money, time and efforts to the LDS church. When comprehensive disclosure becomes the normal practice, we will find no fault. We accept that some will choose to believe whatever they will, despite mountains of contrary evidence, and that is their inalienable right.

 

This made me laugh. Who gets to decide what "comprehensive disclosure" means, or what all the "relevant historical facts" are? I presume they think that they get to decide. And if we don't think there are "mountains of contrary evidence"? Well, then, they will allow us poor deluded fools to keep showing up to Sacrament meeting. But short of their demands being me, by gum, you better stay outside of the church! 

I never quite understood why the anti's thin they have discovered some horrific fact that will cause the membership to abandon the faith wholesale. When I acknowledge that I knew about their objection, and sometimes even fill in a few details they overlooked or didn't know about, but tell them that I have a testimony and no plans to quit the church, you can see the the gears jam in their head. 

[omni]

"We have been repeatedly instructed by those in church authority that God requires us to pay tithing before attending to any other household expenditure, such as rent, food, fuel or clothing."

That's exactly wrong... We are not instructed in any specific way about how to pay tithing. 10% of our increase is to be interpreted by each individual in their own way, between them and God, and they cannot be held in any kind of disfavor if they feel that those types of essential expenses should be paid before calculating their "increase."

If particular church members like bishops or missionaries have instructed otherwise, they shouldn't, but official church statements about tithing have been pretty consistent about that, and I recall a recent General Conference talk reaffirming that position.

So the WHOLE basis of their lawsuit, at least according to the above message, is completely without merit. Of course I knew that, anyway, but that's really an odd thing to get so hung up about and focus on, when they have it so obviously wrong.

 

From the December 2012 issue of the Ensign.

 

“If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.”

 

[Sleeper Cell]

 

It follows that those who default on payments, start to fear that they will lose their loved ones in the eternities. In certain cases known to us, defaulting tithe-payers descend into a state of despondency, feeling utterly worthless, sometimes losing the respect and confidence of their family members who depend upon them to be obedient to the law of tithing. In many cases obedience is accomplished only through fear and coercion, and the fear is induced by constant reference to and emphasis upon the LDS scriptures. 

 

 

Couldn’t a similar argument be made against the plaintiffs?  After all, if the Church were engaged in fraud and coercion, these guys, as former stake presidents, bishops, and/or members of bishoprics, played an integral role.  These are the guys who directly counseled members about their personal problems, collected tithing, and conducted disciplinary hearings. If they were aware of  “defaulting” tithe payers (especially if they were under their stewardships) who were “falling into a state of despondency, feeling utterly worthless, ” etc., why did they continue using “fear and coercion?“  They might claim that they were ignorant of the “fraud” (although, as high ranking church officials, it might be argued that “they knew or should have known”), but how can they argue that they were ignorant of the “coercion” which they, themselves, were carrying out, and how it was affecting those with whom they had a pastoral relationship?  

 

In the (extremely unlikely) event they prevail, some of their former ward and stake members may be tempted to file a similar complaint against them. 

Edited February 7, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[BlueDreams]

I agree.  But there is ample evidence and statements supporting their claim on this.  I'm sure that the church will supply evidence to prove the other half of the story too.

 

True, but a good case would be one where the defense's case comparatively would appear weak. The other half, feels more like the other 2/3 and leaves their statement shoddy. 

[Senator]

Well, I don't disagree that some leaders have made statements to that effect, but the official church position is that we have our own individual discernment as far as what "increase" should mean as compared to our expenses, and that has also been reaffirmed many times by church leaders and in Conference.

 

CFR please.

[Avatar4321]

I am not sure this is completely true.  The whole prop 8 thing didn't end that well for the Church.

 

Forgive me, but where has the Church been hurt by this?

[Senator]

We are not instructed in any specific way about how to pay tithing. 10% of our increase is to be interpreted by each individual in their own way, between them and God, and they cannot be held in any kind of disfavor if they feel that those types of essential expenses should be paid before calculating their "increase."

 

 

That would be quite an illuminating "acceptable option".  I don't think I have ever heard that presented in an official venue; nor do I think I ever will.

[Okrahomer]

From the December 2012 issue of the Ensign.

 

Also from the article you cited:

Reflecting on this experience, Bishop Orellana says, “Ever since then, they have been faithful tithe payers.” The family received some commodities from the bishops’ storehouse during their financial difficulties. Beyond that, the Lord blessed them to be able to care for themselves.