Tacenda Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Sheilauk, I'm sure the church watches discussion boards. There were hints of this happening awhile ago.
ThereIsaidit Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 The old saying " whether its good publicity or bad publicity, doesn't matter because it is still publicity" is relevant here. Pissed off former mormons who feel deceived by the organization just want to stick it to the church in any way they can. Getting this document circulated may not be the final straw that breaks the church, but it is a genius way to put the most difficult issues in front of members. Members then google whether those issues have any weight to them. Even if they look to FAIR and FARM, they will be exposed to even more issues they didnt see coming. And it will only help accelerate the churches hemorrhaging membership. Whether or not it has any weight doesnt matter, I think they already view this as a win. 1
ThereIsaidit Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 The old saying " whether its good publicity or bad publicity, doesn't matter because it is still publicity" is relevant here. Pissed off former mormons who feel deceived by the organization just want to stick it to the church in any way they can. Getting this document circulated may not be the final straw that breaks the church, but it is a genius way to put the most difficult issues in front of members. Members then google whether those issues have any weight to them. Even if they look to FAIR and FARM, they will be exposed to even more issues they didnt see coming. And it will only help accelerate the churches hemorrhaging membership. Whether or not it has any weight doesnt matter, I think they already view this as a win.
halconero Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I think they are disgruntled because they've lost family (Tom) and a lot of tithing money, without knowing all the facts. I don't really blame them all that much. I think it's good the church comes out in the open with everything, so that whomever joins will know exactly what is in history, and true doctrine, that of being Gods etc. Also, the church should be more forthwith to where the tithing goes, enough with advertising so much, and so many videos. Money could be better spent on the poor. I'll bet the essays were put out there because of this suit. I don't know if anything will come of it. But hopefully the church will see the importance of honesty, not be afraid of some of its teachings scaring people off. Address the situation that is happening. Many members are suffering, maybe the Lord will guide the leaders on how best to help them. I'd count myself with the disgruntled. Finding out unknowns, made me lose precious time with family. Made me feel like a freak. It's time to be open and then heal, and then grow in the light of truth.1) It isn't a suit, it's a summons to answer for criminal fraud under private prosecution (something non-existent in US law)2) The articles came before this summons was even signed into existence. Let's not accuse the church of publishing them in order to cover its back.3) With all the talks in the past few years concerning the rescue, hastening the work of salvation, disavowing past theories, allowing for doubt, and reaching out to LGBT members it looks like the Church IS trying to help. 2
Popular Post sheilauk Posted February 5, 2014 Popular Post Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Tacenda, you're saying that the Church saw statements from Mr. Phillips and rumours that something was going to happen and was so panicked that it rushed to produce articles setting out its doctrines and beliefs? Instead of an organised, steady and consistent release of that same information brought on as a result of the observed and commented on increase in the use of online media including social media? It seems to me that the Church has been involved in a coordinated process to update its materials which includes its online material - the Joseph Smith papers project, the new scriptures, the new Youth curriculum, conference talks, on line gospel library, missionaries using social networks - these all work together. It seems to be that the Church is doing this because its reacting in part to complaints about the lack of information and in part because of the increase use of the internet. Edited to add - it seems to me that all these things take a long time to work out and come to fruition. You want more transparency and information and then still malign the Church when its produced. Why are reactions always so negative to the Church's activities? Edited February 5, 2014 by sheilauk 7
halconero Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Sheilauk, I'm sure the church watches discussion boards. There were hints of this happening awhile ago.What hints?
Tacenda Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 What hints?Well, if you're a nut like me and read everything on some boards, you would see it. But you are a super busy person with a life. I've been reading things all over about Tom Phillips and what he's going to spring on the church, and a criminal case was definitely hinted at.
Tacenda Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Tacenda, you're saying that the Church saw statements from Mr. Phillips and rumours that something was going to happen and was so panicked that it rushed to produce articles setting out its doctrines and beliefs? Instead of an organised, steady and consistent release of that same information brought on as a result of the observed and commented on increase in the use of online media including social media? It seems to me that the Church has been involved in a coordinated process to update its materials which includes its online material - the Joseph Smith papers project, the new scriptures, the new Youth curriculum, conference talks, on line gospel library, missionaries using social networks - these all work together. It seems to be that the Church is doing this because its reacting in part to complaints about the lack of information and in part because of the increase use of the internet. You want more transparency and information and then still malign the Church when its produced. Why are reactions always so negative to the Church's activities?It is only myself thinking out loud. The church very well may just have been helping those people, and it's all a coincidence. But the church does have a lot on it's shoulders, they do care for the people, I know that. Why wouldn't they want to avoid a legal battle?
Popular Post california boy Posted February 5, 2014 Popular Post Posted February 5, 2014 Personally, I think this is disgusting, unseamly and foolish. The church doesn't deserve this. It is a church for heavens sake and shoule be allowed to teach what ever it wants. I hope this thing gets tossed out as soon as possible and those that launched this sceme is shamed. 5
halconero Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Well, if you're a nut like me and read everything on some boards, you would see it. But you are a super busy person with a life. I've been reading things all over about Tom Phillips and what he's going to spring on the church, and a criminal case was definitely hinted at.I don't see you as a nut, Tacenda. Not in the least.Here are my concerns though:1) Even if Tom Phillips hinted on other boards that he was going to spring a criminal case what hints were their that the church was spying on these posts?2) What hints are there that the articles on blacks and the priesthood, plural marriage, DNA and the Book of Mormon, and other such talks/articles were driven more by a potential criminal case than addressing the concerns/doubts of members? 1
Tacenda Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I don't see you as a nut, Tacenda. Not in the least.Here are my concerns though:1) Even if Tom Phillips hinted on other boards that he was going to spring a criminal case what hints were their that the church was spying on these posts?2) What hints are there that the articles on blacks and the priesthood, plural marriage, DNA and the Book of Mormon, and other such talks/articles were driven more by a potential criminal case than addressing the concerns/doubts of members?1. Well, through the years, people would say on the NOM board that so and so, was called in because of their activity on the board. They didn't know how their bishop knew. I have no reference. 2. I don't have proof that the church put out the essays to avoid being prosecuted for non disclosure. It was just a thought that entered my mind briefly. But what you and Sheilauk have said, about the church addressing concerns/doubts of members, make sense also.
sheilauk Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Slightly off point but in answer to posts #21 and #23 - the UK has a Human Rights Act and is a signatory to the European Human Rights Treaty. One of these rights is freedom of religion, but its not absolute and can be curtailed in certain circumstances by the State (parliament) (eg for national security reasons). The UK has a state religion - the Anglicans - Church of England, Church of Scotland but no one is forced to be a member or contribute to it or pay much attention to it actually! Its a bit of an odd relationship and yes, it came about because Henry VIII got upset with the Roman Catholic Church. 2
mercyngrace Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) 1. Well, through the years, people would say on the NOM board that so and so, was called in because of their activity on the board. They didn't know how their bishop knew. I have no reference. Someone on another board was excommunicated and said the evidence used against him were statements he made on the message board. He even linked the specific statements. http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32035 Not sure that's the kind of reference you're looking for but there it is. Who can say how the bishop came by that evidence, though? Edited February 5, 2014 by mercyngrace
Calm Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Pretty bold words (coming from someone hiding behind their computer) about a man who was responsible for spreading so much of the Gospel throughout the known world and in the end was executed and gave his life for his beliefs. I admire your bravery..........yes indeedy......Juliann is not the one hiding behind an alias. If you don't know her full name, you haven't been paying attention. 3
Calm Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I don't even know where to begin with the errors and unfounded speculation evinced so far. 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...Thank you very much for this info…I owe you a point, just maxed out on the one right before I went to give you one. 3
Shanky82 Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Maybe this will set a precedent to sue politicians for their lies to get tax money back! I'm down with this...
juliann Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Pretty bold words (coming from someone hiding behind their computer) about a man who was responsible for spreading so much of the Gospel throughout the known world and in the end was executed and gave his life for his beliefs. I admire your bravery..........yes indeedy......Huh? Are you unfamiliar with Paul's brilliance? He was very well educated with words and talked himself out of more than one situation...or just escaped prison rather than standing up and declaring his beliefs as you seem to believe was a constant. And what is your real name, Braveheart? 2
juliann Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 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? Thank you so much for the information, Sheilauk!! It is the first reliable thing I have said amidst all of our speculating (if we just could all post from Church Offices we would have their special powers and just know everything.) The idea that the church skulked around on message boards and discovered what was going to be in this is laughable. Everyone who doesn't skulk could only speculate about what the threats consisted of. You would have to believe that the church could hack private emails to get that information. Why was it called October Surprise if anyone online could figure out what we read today? And why are even supporters expressing surprise about how lame it is if it was so readily available online? 1
Okrahomer Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Just a paraphrase.........You were being serious? Apologies then. Somehow, I got the impression you were trying to be humorous.
Palerider Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Juliann is not the one hiding behind an alias. If you don't know her full name, you haven't been paying attention. I use an alias because I want to leave the church on my own terms and have my name removed from the records when I am ready, not when they want me to. I'm sure you would like to have that process done differently by my revealing my name. But if it was good enough for "Gazelam" I should think that you wouldn't mind it being good enough for me....... Also "paying attention" has nothing to do with it. You think I just sit around all day trying to play "who's who" on this website? Some of us actually have a life you know. If another personal attack is reported you will be removed from the thread.
omni Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 According to some of the other boards, this is just the beginning and much more is to come out at an unspecified time. Apparently the news of the court summons was leaked prematurely by an anonymous hacker and TP has run into a few delays with the rest of the info. I'm not sure how much validity there is to these rumors, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
halconero Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 This fiasco will end not with a bang, but a whimper.
Calm Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Well, if you're a nut like me and read everything on some boards, you would see it. But you are a super busy person with a life. I've been reading things all over about Tom Phillips and what he's going to spring on the church, and a criminal case was definitely hinted at.And the charges for the criminal case, were they hinted at too so the leadership would have a clue how to respond?
Popular Post Calm Posted February 5, 2014 Popular Post Posted February 5, 2014 I use an alias because I want to leave the church on my own terms and have my name removed from the records when I am ready, not when they want me to. I'm sure you would like to have that process done differently by my revealing my name. But if it was good enough for "Gazelam" I should think that you wouldn't mind it being good enough for me....... Also "paying attention" has nothing to do with it. You think I just sit around all day trying to play "who's who" on this website? Some of us actually have a life you know.I don't care if people use their real name or not, that isnt the issue for me, it is the false accusation...I wasn't the one with an alias accusing someone else who actually uses her name of hiding behind the screen. 5
Recommended Posts