Truth 101 Posted March 17, 2014 Author Posted March 17, 2014 Something tells me (with all due respect) that you're not interested in doing either, so what's the problem? You are absolutely right! I'm not interested in any way in doing it. But there is no problem, this thread is just to follow what's going on with the case, as it does pertain very greatly to British members. My opinion: This case is most likely going nowhere.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 You are absolutely right! I'm not interested in any way in doing it. Now, how did I know that?! My powers of seership are amazing, n'est-ce pas? But there is no problem, this thread is just to follow what's going on with the case, as it does pertain very greatly to British members. Oh, it pertains to a far wider circle of folks than just British members. There are members of the Church of Jesus Christ in most countries of the world, and President Thomas S. Monson is their Beloved Prophet, too. My opinion: This case is most likely going nowhere. We agree! I'm hoping, and I'll even go out on a limb and predict, that the Crown Prosecution Service will take it over and allow it to die the swift, merciful death it deserves.
krampus Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 The LDS church came out with a new essay on their website.https://www.lds.org/topics/citizenship?lang=engIn response to Thomas Monson's trial is the following quoted from their essay:"With respect to freedom of religion, governments are responsible to not prescribe “rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion . . . [or] suppress the freedom of the soul” (D&C 134:4). Indeed, Latter-day Saints believe that “governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief” (D&C 134:7)."While I agree that government should not exercise undue control over religion, that does not mean that they must not protect its citizens from fraud perpetrated by the leaders of organized religion. I stated the following on an online forum:"Do you think governments should turn a blind eye to deception and fraud if it is conducted in the name of religion? I'm not talking about the LDS church specifically, but with other organized religions, if it is provable that they are giving a false persona and have false motives, and/or are provably saying things which the leaders of the organized religion know is false or unlikely, for their benefit, another's benefit, or for undue control through half truths, false promises, and exaggerated negative consequences that elicit unneccesary thoughts of fear, over-riding rational thought and agency (much like a sex offender manipulating under age youth or the mentally unstable). Another thing to consider is that this fraudulant conduct would also have a negative impact, whether intentional or unintentionally, on the mental welfare, monetary welfare, and on the security of those not involved as adherrants of the fraudulent faith, through the culture instilled."
sheilauk Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 You are inaccurate. It is not about anonymity and the availability or otherwise of "benefits". Please read through the two threads on this board. FYI - its just "the Fraud Act 2006". no look it up, it's the Elizabeth II Anti-Fraud act of 2006. I wasn't going to participate in this thread, but in the interests of accuracy - I practice criminal law in the UK. I know what we call our Acts of Parliament. Obviously, you haven't read the other two threads about this case. Cal has referred you to the UK Government website that lists all current Acts of Parliament under their official name. Elizabeth II is our Queen and Head of State. She signs all the Acts of Parliament. Until she does, its not law. So her name appears on all of the ones she's signed. There are still acts in use which were signed by her father and even her grandfather. In fact, there are some that were signed by Queen Victoria that are still in force. When referring to an Act of Parliament, you don't use the Sovereign's name. It would be like quoting the name of the President in place when Congress passed a statute. Yes, the Act of Parliament referred to is an anti fraud act. That is its purpose. We have a lot of anti something laws - anti theft, anti assault, anti speeding. So does the USA, I know that the USA has statutes which are officially called the Anti something but not always. In the UK, the official title doesn't usually mention what the act is anti or for, if its a positive one. There is a little descriptive bit published below the title which says what the act is for. We don't quote that either when we give the title of the Act. If you read the summons in this case, you will see that it states that the offence is contrary to the Fraud Act 2006. When quoting the Act of Parliament, giving its name - which is what you were doing in your first post - its "The Fraud Act 2006". It is good manners to use the form used by the country of origin and educative. To say - meh, I've only seen it as the anti fraud act and that's what it's about anyway is bad form. 4
Five Solas Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 whoever figured all that out has way too much time on their handsThink about it, Duncan. Sky posts a link that shows a modest residence belonging to the LDS President/Prophet ( post # 7 ). He/she asserts the apparent modesty of the dwelling is indicative of an absence of fraud (It doesn't look like he is defrauding the members...). But the author of Sky's link doesn't tell the reader the whole truth about Monson's residencies and properties. It's a half-truth. Some might call this type of thing propaganda. And it misleads the reader into the very conclusion Sky made on post 7. And yet you're dismissive--"too much time on their hands." And you're not referring to the author of Sky's link--you're dismissive of the person(s) who took the trouble to set the record straight. I'm probably not the only reader who sees you've got it backwards --Erik
ALarson Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Information regarding the real estate holdings of many of the church leaders is already online. I have no issue with this and we need to remember that many of them were very highly successful in their careers prior to becoming apostles. Here's a link with other holdings: http://www.mormoninfographics.com/2013/11/land-of-lucre-real-estate-holdings-of.html
Duncan Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Think about it, Duncan. Sky posts a link that shows a modest residence belonging to the LDS President/Prophet ( post # 7 ). He/she asserts the apparent modesty of the dwelling is indicative of an absence of fraud (It doesn't look like he is defrauding the members...). But the author of Sky's link doesn't tell the reader the whole truth about Monson's residencies and properties. It's a half-truth. Some might call this type of thing propaganda. And it misleads the reader into the very conclusion Sky made on post 7. And yet you're dismissive--"too much time on their hands." And you're not referring to the author of Sky's link--you're dismissive of the person(s) who took the trouble to set the record straight. I'm probably not the only reader who sees you've got it backwards --Erik yes I am dismissive because I simply don't care where Pres. Monson lives. Why should someone care where someone they've never met lives? I pay tithing and i have been blessed for doing so. I attend Church in a building that is heated, hymn books are provided, the lighting, heat are paid for and we didn't have to raise one quid for its construction. I served a mission and I flew there and back on the Church's dime as my family couldn't afford it. I guess what the Church says it does with tithing money is what i see actually happening and it was sunstoned I was responding to Edited March 17, 2014 by Duncan 4
MiserereNobis Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Information regarding the real estate holdings of many of the church leaders is already online. I have no issue with this and we need to remember that many of them were very highly successful in their careers prior to becoming apostles. Here's a link with other holdings: http://www.mormoninfographics.com/2013/11/land-of-lucre-real-estate-holdings-of.html I wonder how much the Apostolic Palace in Vatican City is worth? 2
ALarson Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I wonder how much the Apostolic Palace in Vatican City is worth? Good question! Who owns that?
MiserereNobis Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Good question! Who owns that? The Pope! He owns the whole darn country. There are way more "expose's" on the wealth of the Catholic Church and the Pope than on the LDS church. The protestants have been hammering away at us for over 500 years. You guys get off easy
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 You are right! Paying tithing is a choice! But good luck getting a temple recommend without paying it! I personally know several members whom pay no tithing and regularly attend the Temple. 1
ALarson Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 And...he doesn't even live there Wow. Reading about the AP is fascinating and thanks for the info. I did find this:"The owner of the AP is the civ that currently owns the AP's city." Which must be the Pope, right? Here's the link (it was very interesting to read):http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Apostolic_Palace_(Civ4)
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 you better believe it! I am eating some right now!!! There is no wrong with Canada that warmer weather wouldn't help.
MiserereNobis Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 And...he doesn't even live there Wow. Reading about the AP is fascinating and thanks for the info. I did find this:"The owner of the AP is the civ that currently owns the AP's city." Which must be the Pope, right? Here's the link (it was very interesting to read):http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Apostolic_Palace_(Civ4) That link looks like it is for a video game. Check out the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Palace And yes, the Pope owns the palace (along with everything else in Vatican City).
ALarson Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 That link looks like it is for a video game. Check out the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Palace And yes, the Pope owns the palace (along with everything else in Vatican City).Hey, thanks for the link. So, I can assume the info isn't all accurate on the page I was reading?
Bikeemikey Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 And Canada, in turn, gave us that wonderful invention known as poutine! Well actually I think we might have to thank the French for that one! 1
cdowis Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) And yes, the Pope owns the palace (along with everything else in Vatican City). I assume, however, that "ownership" precludes his authority to sell anything. Like the President owning the White House, the ownership is assigned to the office or title, and not to the individual. Edited March 17, 2014 by cdowis
savedbygrace Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 That link looks like it is for a video game. Check out the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Palace And yes, the Pope owns the palace (along with everything else in Vatican City).Thankfully Pope Francis doesn't seem impressed with all that stuff and apparently does not occupy the Papal apartments, but a much more modest residence. I guess it all comes with the job, so, in that context does he actually own it?
Duncan Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) There is no wrong with Canada that warmer weather wouldn't help. as if we don't have enough cold and snow we got dumped on yestarday. I called the sisters last night about an item, one from Liverpool and the other from Mesa and they were driving out in the blizzard!!!! buncha crazies! Edited March 17, 2014 by Duncan
savedbygrace Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I'm not arguing it demonstrates fraud--but records show he possesses several of them. Your perspective may be a little naive...;0) --Erik PS. Let Google be your friendSo what? Your tone seems to suggest that you believe otherwise, do you have any evidence that that might be the case? 1
MichelleD Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I assume, however, that "ownership" precludes his authority to sell anything. Like the President owning the White House, the ownership is assigned to the office or title, and not to the individual.I think it's a corporate sole just like the Mormon church. So, technically President Monson "owns everything" too, I guess (for our church).But that is separate from ownership of their personal property.
giotto Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Very cool link to the website showing the homes of the prophets. Pretty humble dwellings for the most part. Check out Ezra Taft Benson's crazy roof in the second picture! The house looks like something out of the Enchanted Village!
MiserereNobis Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I assume, however, that "ownership" precludes his authority to sell anything. Like the President owning the White House, the ownership is assigned to the office or title, and not to the individual. As far as I know, he could sell it if he wanted to. He is the absolute monarch of Vatican City -- there is no authority higher than him that could stop him. Not that a Pope would ever do such a thing, but Vatican City and the Holy See are interesting topics to study because of their uniqueness. For example, it has one of the highest crime rates (per capita) in the world. This is because the Vatican has nearly 20 million visitors a year and there is a lot of pick-pocketing of them. However, the Vatican only has roughly 800 citizens, so the crime rate per capita is seriously skewed
Anteojito Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 You are right! Paying tithing is a choice! But good luck getting a temple recommend without paying it!It is not just that. I understand that now in order to baptize your children or bless and name a baby, you have to have a temple recommend.
ALarson Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 It is not just that. I understand that now in order to baptize your children or bless and name a baby, you have to have a temple recommend.I think you just have to be temple worthy and the decision is actually up to each individual's Bishop.
Recommended Posts