Law Suit by Second-Anointed Mormon, Tom Phillips against Tom Monson, "Prophet"

[Apologette]

Has the Mormon cult met its Waterloo? One can only hope! Nothing like this has happened since William Law published the "Nauvoo Expositor!" Tom Phillips is a Mormon from England who has received his "Second Anointing," ***uring him of godhood in the Celestial Kingdom. He has brought suit against Tom Monson, Mormon prophet based on an English law against Fraud. Here is the low down on the suit:

http://positivists.org/blog/archives/1870

Note:

"Fraud, so the gist of the Fraud Act 2006, can be detected in “false representations” in a “failing to disclose information”, and in “abuse of a position”."

"The questions arising under these propositions are complex: Religions are most certainly imposing beliefs on their adherents. These can well be imagined to include “false representations” or a “failing to disclose information”. The leaders usually claim to have a greater authority which could be abused – in this case the authority of a “prophet, seer, and revelator”, again an option covered by the legal text."

I believe today is a pertinent date for the law suit:

(The following is from the ex-Mormon forum):

"Details of the Summons

The summons requires Monson to appear, in person, in Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 14 March 2014 at 10 a.m., for the purpose of Monson answering seven specific charges of false representation by the Mormon Church (as listed in the summons), which are said to be in contravention of Section 1 of the Fraud Act of 2006.

If Monson fails to appear, the Court may issue a warrant for Monson’s arrest. Monson’s appearance will be in the Court venue where initial evidence is produced and the charges are read out. The actual trial will not begin on 14 March 2014 but sometime thereafter as determined by the appropriate Court (almost certainly Southwark Crown Court)."

This is one case we'll want to keep an eye on! Here is the scoop on Tom Phillips:

http://mormonthink.com/tomphillips.htm

Also, one of the issues raised in the law suit is:


1) Untrue statements have been dishonestly made by the Mormon Church with the intent to accrue financial gain for the Mormon Church and cause a financial loss to others. (ex-Mormons forum)

Boy could this ever open a can of worms!

[Apologette]

I discovered this update of what transpired in today's English court session:


http://www.mormonthink.com/files/fra...e-blogging.pdf

[James Banta]

I discovered this update of what transpired in today's English court session:


http://www.mormonthink.com/files/fra...e-blogging.pdf

I am watching this.. The outcome will be interesting.. I don't think it will have consequences for the LDS in America.. IHS jim

[theway]

Has the Mormon cult met its Waterloo? One can only hope! Nothing like this has happened since William Law published the "Nauvoo Expositor!" Tom Phillips is a Mormon from England who has received his "Second Anointing," ***uring him of godhood in the Celestial Kingdom. He has brought suit against Tom Monson, Mormon prophet based on an English law against Fraud. Here is the low down on the suit:

http://positivists.org/blog/archives/1870

Note:

"Fraud, so the gist of the Fraud Act 2006, can be detected in “false representations” in a “failing to disclose information”, and in “abuse of a position”."

"The questions arising under these propositions are complex: Religions are most certainly imposing beliefs on their adherents. These can well be imagined to include “false representations” or a “failing to disclose information”. The leaders usually claim to have a greater authority which could be abused – in this case the authority of a “prophet, seer, and revelator”, again an option covered by the legal text."

I believe today is a pertinent date for the law suit:

(The following is from the ex-Mormon forum):

"Details of the Summons

The summons requires Monson to appear, in person, in Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 14 March 2014 at 10 a.m., for the purpose of Monson answering seven specific charges of false representation by the Mormon Church (as listed in the summons), which are said to be in contravention of Section 1 of the Fraud Act of 2006.

If Monson fails to appear, the Court may issue a warrant for Monson’s arrest. Monson’s appearance will be in the Court venue where initial evidence is produced and the charges are read out. The actual trial will not begin on 14 March 2014 but sometime thereafter as determined by the appropriate Court (almost certainly Southwark Crown Court)."

This is one case we'll want to keep an eye on! Here is the scoop on Tom Phillips:

http://mormonthink.com/tomphillips.htm

Also, one of the issues raised in the law suit is:


1) Untrue statements have been dishonestly made by the Mormon Church with the intent to accrue financial gain for the Mormon Church and cause a financial loss to others. (ex-Mormons forum)

Boy could this ever open a can of worms!Oh Great!
Another testimony of the spiritual insights of an Atheist.

What is this Apologette.... about ten Atheists in a row for you?

What your silly mind can not comprehend is that this is not a can of worms but a Pandora's box for "ALL CHRISTIANS"
Why ironically this would open it up for new converts to the Mormon Church to sue their old Ministers and Preachers for lying to them about the gospel.

You really are silly CA.

[John T]

I discovered this update of what transpired in today's English court session:
http://www.mormonthink.com/files/fra...e-blogging.pdf

Error 404 File not found

I tried 2X

[John T]

Oh Great!
Another testimony of the spiritual insights of an Atheist.

What is this Apologette.... about ten Atheists in a row for you?

Your attempts to discredit Tom Phillips by name calling is as juvenile as it is puerile. It has ZERO to do with the facts of the case, nor is there any attempt of refutation of the things he presented. When you want to deal in factual matters, such as addressing the things he sent to Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, member Quorum of the Twelve Apostles


What your silly mind can not comprehend is that this is not a can of worms but a Pandora's box for "ALL CHRISTIANS"
Why ironically this would open it up for new converts to the Mormon Church to sue their old Ministers and Preachers for lying to them about the gospel.

You really are silly CA.

Now, like a third grader, you call Apologette "silly" and accuse her of having a "silly mind", which , and in a great deal of disrespect and rudeness, you fail to use her correct user name here.

And we Christians are supposed to take you seriously because you act like an 8 years-old boy when you retort with that sort of ****, and do not address the issues?

[theway]

Your attempts to discredit Tom Phillips by name calling is as juvenile as it is puerile. It has ZERO to do with the facts of the case, nor is there any attempt of refutation of the things he presented. When you want to deal in factual matters, such as addressing the things he sent to Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, member Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
No... I am not discrediting him, I think he is a credit to those he represents.

I just don't find the logic of a person calling themselves a Christain, lying in bed with an Atheist when it comes to spiritual matters and insights.
HAVE YOU EVEN READ WHAT HIS ARGUEMENT IS; or like CA, are you just satisfied that whatever he does is right as long as it is against the LDS Church? Just like you do... Remember? You had no problem using discredited psychiatric text books, as long as you thought you could make it into an arguement against Joseph Smith.



Now, like a third grader, you call Apologette "silly" and accuse her of having a "silly mind", which , and in a great deal of disrespect and rudeness, you fail to use her correct user name here.?
CA is silly, she always has been, and until she changes, she will always be seen as such. She has yet to use my name correctly even once. You have got to give respect to get it. That is... If that is what you came here for? Which I did not.

And we Christians are supposed to take you seriously because you act like an 8 years-old boy when you retort with that sort of ****, and do not address the issuesi could care less if you take me serious or not, I have stated this from the very start of my posting to these forums. What you seem to be upset about is that my **** is being taken more seriously then your best arguments.

[John T]

No... I am not discrediting him, I think he is a credit to those he represents.

I just don't find the logic of a person calling themselves a (sic) Christain, lying in bed with an Atheist when it comes to spiritual matters and insights.

HAVE YOU EVEN READ WHAT HIS (sic) ARGUEMENT IS; or like CA, are you just satisfied that whatever he does is right as long as it is against the LDS Church? Just like you do... Remember? You had no problem using discredited psychiatric text books, as long as you thought you could make it into an (sic) arguement against Joseph Smith.

Your hatred of Apologette is not the issue here.
Your hatred of me or my posts is not the issue here.
Since they both are distorting your ability to get to the crux of the OP, I shall only respond if you can give me a summary of what TOM PHILLIPS is attempting to do.

[Apologette]

Your hatred of Apologette is not the issue here.
Your hatred of me or my posts is not the issue here.
Since they both are distorting your ability to get to the crux of the OP, I shall only respond if you can give me a summary of what TOM PHILLIPS is attempting to do.
Ah, I wear NOTtheway's hatred as a badge of honor!

[theway]

Your hatred of Apologette is not the issue here.
Your hatred of me or my posts is not the issue here.Who said I hate either one of you?
It's like the old parable of the frog and the scorpion. How can I be mad at someone who simply acts out their nature?
If a rattlesnake bit me I wouldn't be mad at the snake, it was simply being a snake.


Since they both are distorting your ability to get to the crux of the OP,You couldn't be more wrong. It's because I understand you guys and the issue at hand that I am not fooled by the drama, or by you.

I shall only respond if you can give me a summary of what TOM PHILLIPS is attempting to do.Once again you have read me wrong... I could care less whether you respond to me. Anyone who knows what the OP is about would understand that this is against all of Christianity, and only forwards the Atheist agenda.

When you lie down with dogs, you won't be able to complain when you wake up with flees.

[alanmolstad]

Perhaps......we might move on to talking about ideas and what we think of issues?...

and no so much deal with the personal stuff.....

[theway]

Ah, I wear NOTtheway's hatred as a badge of honor!Not true.... Once again you are believing your own made-up diatribes and rants.

[theway]

Perhaps......we might move on to talking about ideas and what we think of issues?...

and no so much deal with the personal stuff.....I was the only one who has so far... I said it was silly because it was not just an AntiMormon issue, but one which could effect all Christians in England.
However, I want this to go through, it will spark debate on Mormonism and religion. That's always a good thing.

[Apologette]

No... I am not discrediting him, I think he is a credit to those he represents.

I just don't find the logic of a person calling themselves a Christain, lying in bed with an Atheist when it comes to spiritual matters and insights.
HAVE YOU EVEN READ WHAT HIS ARGUEMENT IS; or like CA, are you just satisfied that whatever he does is right as long as it is against the LDS Church? Just like you do... Remember? You had no problem using discredited psychiatric text books, as long as you thought you could make it into an arguement against Joseph Smith.


CA is silly, she always has been, and until she changes, she will always be seen as such. She has yet to use my name correctly even once. You have got to give respect to get it. That is... If that is what you came here for? Which I did not.
i could care less if you take me serious or not, I have stated this from the very start of my posting to these forums. What you seem to be upset about is that my **** is being taken more seriously then your best arguments.

Oh, I'm "silly?" Well, having held supervisory positions with the State, I doubt I'm silly. Fairly competent in my field of expertise, although I don't go tooting a horn like your "scholar" does. So, why don't you tell us what you've accomplished? Why aren't you SILLY? nevertheway? Why aren't all Mormons fools, really, for placing their salvation in the hands of a false prophet, proven to be such, who was a pedophile, liar and banking criminal. That's not just silly, that's despicable, since Jesus died to show us the real way - now rejected by those who pander after Smith!

[Apologette]

Error 404 File not found

I tried 2X

Ah, perhaps the Mormons got to that file. I'll try to find it and copy it.

[Apologette]

This update was posted on Mormon Discussions - that site is made up of more rationally thinking Mormons than you generally find here or on CARM:

"JUDGE HEARS DAY-LONG ARGUMENTS IN MORMON FRAUD CASE
Case may advance to Crown Court for trial; judge will announce ruling on Thursday


Sa****ay, March 15. After a full day of arguments in front of a British magistrate yesterday, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ legal counsel failed to get dismissed fraud charges against the Church’s Prophet, Seer and Revelator, Thomas Monson. Instead, Church leaders will wait until Thursday, March 20, to learn the next steps in the case. On that day, the judge will announce whether the fraud case will proceed to Crown Court for trial.

At yesterday’s hearing, Church attorneys attempted to discredit the case in two ways. First, they argued that the fraud charges emanated from a grudge. They claimed that Thomas Phillips, the British subject who instigated the fraud charges, was a “disaffected” Mormon whose problems with the church were personal, not legal in nature. Second, the Mormon legal team declared that religious teachings and matters of belief are outside the sphere of criminal law. They argue the charges against Monson are on the basis of his beliefs and not about facts which Monson may or may not have spoken.

Phillips’ legal team clarified that religions are not above the law. They cited examples of lay and clerical members of religious ins***utions convicted of serious crimes in the United Kingdom. Focusing in on the case at hand, Phillips’ attorneys showed how specific LDS Church representations, particularly its deceptive use of the term, “translate,” are consistent with the illicit acts covered in the United Kingdom’s Fraud Act of 2006. These particular representations, argues Phillips, are statements of fact by LDS leaders, including Monson, and subject to scrutiny under the Fraud Act. The Act stipulates three types of fraud Phillips’ counsel affirmed that the Church carried out: fraud by false representation; fraud by failing to disclose information; and fraud by abuse of position. If the case proceeds to trial in Crown Court, Phillips’ team will need to further substantiate, corroborate and verify each charge in detail.

David Twede, the Phillips case’s spokesperson, remarked that, “Today’s hearing shows us that the British legal system takes those who violate its laws seriously, regardless of who they are and what kind of putative religious authority they speak from. I’m glad we live in a day and age when certain governments can be enlightened enough to recognize that fraud is fraud." ”

[RealFakeHair]

Who said I hate either one of you?
It's like the old parable of the frog and the scorpion. How can I be mad at someone who simply acts out their nature?
If a rattlesnake bit me I wouldn't be mad at the snake, it was simply being a snake.

You couldn't be more wrong. It's because I understand you guys and the issue at hand that I am not fooled by the drama, or by you.
Once again you have read me wrong... I could care less whether you respond to me. Anyone who knows what the OP is about would understand that this is against all of Christianity, and only forwards the Atheist agenda.

When you lie down with dogs, you won't be able to complain when you wake up with flees.

You are half correct, the part you miss is (all of Christianity.) It is against all persons of religious faith. Mormonism is not christian, but it takes from the christian Bible and adds it false beliefs, thus making it a false christian faith.

[theway]

You are half correct, the part you miss is (all of Christianity.) It is against all persons of religious faith. Mormonism is not christian, but it takes from the christian Bible and adds it false beliefs, thus making it a false christian faith.And that is perfectly fine with me if you believe that.
I am not going to sue you over your belief, also, I have NEVER once even filed a complaint with a Moderator over anything or anyone.
But I wonder what CA is going to say when they start arguing against taking the Bible literally in this case. We will soon find out who is really on the Lord's side and who is on the lord's side:D I think she only cares about her AntiMormon agenda, truth be ****ed .

[Zeus]

And that is perfectly fine with me if you believe that.
I am not going to sue you over your belief, also, I have NEVER once even filed a complaint with a Moderator over anything or anyone.
But I wonder what CA is going to say when they start arguing against taking the Bible literally in this case. We will soon find out who is really on the Lord's side and who is on the lord's side:D I think she only cares about her AntiMormon agenda, truth be ****ed .

I think you might be on to something. It seems that those opposed to Mormonism have a set of double-standards. Even in this thread alone, you can see that an Anti-mormon chastised you as being an 8-year-old for using a different name for a poster (one that said poster actually uses). But when the Anti-Mormon used a different name for you (one that you DON'T use), it is crickets and tacit acceptance.

And so it seems with this case of Tom Phillips. It's all good and fine if it's against Mormons, but they disregard the ramifications of this case (if there are any) would equally implicate all of Christiantiy and religion altogether.

[RealFakeHair]

I think you might be on to something. It seems that those opposed to Mormonism have a set of double-standards. Even in this thread alone, you can see that an Anti-mormon chastised you as being an 8-year-old for using a different name for a poster (one that said poster actually uses). But when the Anti-Mormon used a different name for you (one that you DON'T use), it is crickets and tacit acceptance.

And so it seems with this case of Tom Phillips. It's all good and fine if it's against Mormons, but they disregard the ramifications of this case (if there are any) would equally implicate all of Christiantiy and religion altogether.

I away say, "sticks and stone will break your bones." So it aint never been about name calling. It is about lost souls headed to Joseph Smith jr. and his god Satan, and all those poor soul who will meet with their mormon god in Hell.
It is Hell, and nothing more that sadden me about all this.

[John T]

This message is hidden because theway is on your ignore list (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

I have had my fill of puerile insolence.

[RealFakeHair]

This message is hidden because theway is on your ignore list (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

I have had my fill of puerile insolence.

Can you have tea with that?

[theway]

This message is hidden because theway is on your ignore list (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

I have had my fill of puerile insolence.Puerile???

Wasn't it just you who got all atwitter for me calling CA silly, yet you turn around and did the same thing.

I'm guessing you must not have known what the word meant.

[alanmolstad]

can you guys ever learn to move on?

[John T]

can you guys ever learn to move on?

Can you stop playing self-appointed moderator?

[alanmolstad]

Can you stop playing self-appointed moderator?

dont you see that each guest has the same duty?

[alanmolstad]

what is this law suit about?

why is it important?

[RealFakeHair]

Can you stop playing self-appointed moderator?

Can I be the new moderator? I mean I promise not to let it go to my head, but my fingers on this computer I have no control over.

[Apologette]

And that is perfectly fine with me if you believe that.
I am not going to sue you over your belief, also, I have NEVER once even filed a complaint with a Moderator over anything or anyone.
But I wonder what CA is going to say when they start arguing against taking the Bible literally in this case. We will soon find out who is really on the Lord's side and who is on the lord's side:D I think she only cares about her AntiMormon agenda, truth be ****ed .
Do you think such arguments bother Christians? Why your so-called LDS "scholars" make a living off of attacking the Bible.

[Apologette]

what is this law suit about?

why is it important?

Why don't you read the OP and find out?

[alanmolstad]

Why don't you read the OP and find out?

I just dont get it.

How can you take the mormon church to trial for being mormon?

far as i can see the guy is upset that they taught him that the earth/Adam was 6,000 years ago....but as that is a matter of faith, and people can believe and teach anything they want, I dont see the point if going to court over the question.

many religions have their own teachings about the rise of man and sin and death in the world

[RealFakeHair]

I just dont get it.

How can you take the mormon church to trial for being mormon?

far as i can see the guy is upset that they taught him that the earth/Adam was 6,000 years ago....but as that is a matter of faith, and people can believe and teach anything they want, I dont see the point if going to court over the question.

many religions have their own teachings about the rise of man and sin and death in the world

I think he woke up one day and said to himself, "you mean I really did believe this BS!"

[theway]

Why don't you read the OP and find out?That's the problem, your OP says nothing about the lawsuit, it is just your usual AntiMormon rant.
This is why I asked whether you even read what the lawsuit was about. I guessing as usual you did not.
Had you done so you would realize that this is not a lawsuit about a ExMormon vs the LDS Church, but a lawsuit about an Atheist against Religion altogether. Win or lose this case will hurt modern Christianity more than the LDS.

[alanmolstad]

I think he woke up one day and said to himself, "you mean I really did believe this BS!"

I just dont get what grounds he thinks he has a case?
How would you disprove Adam lived or did not live and when?

[theway]

I just dont get it.

How can you take the mormon church to trial for being mormon?

far as i can see the guy is upset that they taught him that the earth/Adam was 6,000 years ago....but as that is a matter of faith, and people can believe and teach anything they want, I dont see the point if going to court over the question.

many religions have their own teachings about the rise of man and sin and death in the worldThats the irony here.
The LDS Church is not dogmatic when it comes to the age of the earth, evolution, or Bible infallibility, while most Christian churches are. Why, half the points in this lawsuit aren't even based on what we actually believe.

Like I said, this us not a can of worms for the Mormons, but a Pandora's box for anyone of Faith.
CA can not see this because she is blinded by her AntiMormonism dogma which says anything against the Mormons is right.

[theway]

I just dont get what grounds he thinks he has a case?
How would you disprove Adam lived or did not live and when?I tell my published Atheist Uncle, that being an Atheist takes more faith than being a Christian. Because he makes absolute factual statements without any proof whatsoever.

[RealFakeHair]

I tell my published Atheist Uncle, that being an Atheist takes more faith than being a Christian. Because he makes absolute factual statements without any proof whatsoever.

What you say is true, however what amount of gullibility it take to be a believer in Joseph Smith jr. Imaginary mind?
Golden plates hidden in a box on Hill Cumorah pageant.

[Phoenix]

... this is not a lawsuit about a ExMormon vs the LDS Church, but a lawsuit about an Atheist against Religion altogether. Win or lose this case will hurt modern Christianity more than the LDS.

That is very likely true. If the disgruntled member wins this case and the LDS church loses, it will set a precedent, and every disgruntled former member of every church will be able to be part of a cl*** action suit against their former church for teaching them stuff they now believe to have been false.

You will probably see TV commercials from ambulance-chasing "victims' lawyers" saying "Did you belong to a church that you feel didn't tell you the truth? Call our attorneys and claim your share of their money!"

And every church will be bankrupted, and will be afraid to accept any new members.

This seems to fit right in with what the devil would want to see happen to the churches of the world.

[Phoenix]

I just dont get what grounds he thinks he has a case?
How would you disprove Adam lived or did not live and when?

That is a good point, IMO.

[theway]

That is very likely true. If the disgruntled member wins this case and the LDS church loses, it will set a precedent, and every disgruntled former member of every church will be able to be part of a cl*** action suit against their former church for teaching them stuff they now believe to have been false.

You will probably see TV commercials from ambulance-chasing "victims' lawyers" saying "Did you belong to a church that you feel didn't tell you the truth? Call our attorneys and claim your share of their money!"

And every church will be bankrupted, and will be afraid to accept any new members.

This seems to fit right in with what the devil would want to see happen to the churches of the world.The irony is, that because the LDS Church is made up of converts from other religions, that all new LDS members could now sue their former Church. LOL... you've got to love it. I'm half hoping he wins, this will be good for the church in more ways than one.

[John T]

I just dont get what grounds he thinks he has a case?
How would you disprove Adam lived or did not live and when?


Hello, Alan:

You need to read more of the links provided in the OP, especially the one about British Fraud Law.

More to the point, it is NOT about Adam, but that the guy is attempting to sue the entire LSD corporation in Great Brittan over their alleged fraud as a religion. Until you do that, you will never understand the issue. I will admit that I do not fully comprehend the issue, but reading that gave me a handle on what the OP was attempting to state. OK?

[alanmolstad]

John.....
2 things....

First, I did go over the provided links, and I still think the issue is a bit foggy as to what his legal beef is?

Secondly , if his case is that of a "fraud' and......and, it's this hard to understand where the fraud is?...then I dont see he has any case at all.

From what i was reading it seems to be that as he was in a study of science he came to the point where he started to believe that the teachings of science were not the same as the teachings of his Mormon faith....

But that is not a matter of law!

That is a matter of meditation and for study , and for debate.
I still don't see that he has any case to support hiring a lawyer and going to court over.

[Phoenix]

The irony is, that because the LDS Church is made up of converts from other religions, that all new LDS members could now sue their former Church. LOL... you've got to love it. I'm half hoping he wins, this will be good for the church in more ways than one.
Correct. A large number of current LDS, are former Protestants or former Catholics. Do Protestants really want their former members who are now LDS to sue the Protestant churches for teaching what the former members once believed to be true, but now believe to be false?

[alanmolstad]

Correct. A large number of current LDS, are former Protestants or former Catholics. Do Protestants really want their former members who are now LDS to sue the Protestant churches for teaching what the former members once believed to be true, but now believe to be false?
Im not sure about the Laws in other countries....but if the guy has a case over there then this will be interesting to see how it pans out?

I am just saying that as far as what I have read in the links so far, I dont give this case much of a chance...But Im thinking of the law as i know it, and I may be way off when dealing with the laws of other countries.

[John T]

John.....
2 things....

First, I did go over the provided links, and I still think the issue is a bit foggy as to what his legal beef is?

Secondly , if his case is that of a "fraud' and......and, it's this hard to understand where the fraud is?...then I dont see he has any case at all.

From what i was reading it seems to be that as he was in a study of science he came to the point where he started to believe that the teachings of science were not the same as the teachings of his Mormon faith....

But that is not a matter of law!

That is a matter of meditation and for study , and for debate.
I still don't see that he has any case to support hiring a lawyer and going to court over.

Lawyers go into the profession for one purpose: MAKE MONEY.
Obviously one or several British lawyers thought they could make money on this case in Great Britain.
Neither of us are British, nor are we lawyers. Therefore we can not understand the logic of this situation.

It is just that simple.

[Erundur]

British court dismisses complaint against LDS Pres. Monson

SALT LAKE CITY — A British court has thrown out a complaint against the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Thomas S. Monson.

A disaffected former church member, Thomas Phillips, filed the complaint, claiming Pres. Monson committed fraud through false teachings. A British magistrate on Jan. 31 issued a summons for Pres. Monson to appear in a London court to answer questions about it.

However, Westminster Magistrates Court Senior District Judge Howard Riddle's Thursday ruling states no secular court in England would ever put that before a jury.

The ruling also said that the court was being manipulated "to provide a high-profile forum to attack the religious beliefs of others. It is an abuse of the process of the court," it said.

"Even if Mr. Monson has made the representations complained of, the basis for the complaint that he made them dishonestly (or intending a gain or a loss) is too tenuous. It is not sufficient to found a criminal prosecution," the court ruling stated.

"It is obvious that this proposed prosecution attacks the doctrine and beliefs of the Mormon Church, and is aimed at those beliefs rather than any wrongdoing of Mr. Monson personally," the judge's ruling continued.

It says it's "inevitable" that the prosecution would never reach a jury, even if Pres. Monson were to attend.

"To convict a jury would need to be sure the religious teachings of the Mormon Church are untrue or misleading. That proposition is at the heart of the case. No judge in a secular court in England and Wales would allow that issue to be put to a jury. It is non-justiciable."

Church spokesman Cody Craynor issued a statement on the ruling:

"We are satisfied with the court's ruling. This case was a misuse of the legal system and should never have been brought."

Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=29134164#eCAZKcFL7xJ8p8Uu.99

[RealFakeHair]

British court dismisses complaint against LDS Pres. Monson

SALT LAKE CITY — A British court has thrown out a complaint against the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Thomas S. Monson.

A disaffected former church member, Thomas Phillips, filed the complaint, claiming Pres. Monson committed fraud through false teachings. A British magistrate on Jan. 31 issued a summons for Pres. Monson to appear in a London court to answer questions about it.

However, Westminster Magistrates Court Senior District Judge Howard Riddle's Thursday ruling states no secular court in England would ever put that before a jury.

The ruling also said that the court was being manipulated "to provide a high-profile forum to attack the religious beliefs of others. It is an abuse of the process of the court," it said.

"Even if Mr. Monson has made the representations complained of, the basis for the complaint that he made them dishonestly (or intending a gain or a loss) is too tenuous. It is not sufficient to found a criminal prosecution," the court ruling stated.

"It is obvious that this proposed prosecution attacks the doctrine and beliefs of the Mormon Church, and is aimed at those beliefs rather than any wrongdoing of Mr. Monson personally," the judge's ruling continued.

It says it's "inevitable" that the prosecution would never reach a jury, even if Pres. Monson were to attend.

"To convict a jury would need to be sure the religious teachings of the Mormon Church are untrue or misleading. That proposition is at the heart of the case. No judge in a secular court in England and Wales would allow that issue to be put to a jury. It is non-justiciable."

Church spokesman Cody Craynor issued a statement on the ruling:

"We are satisfied with the court's ruling. This case was a misuse of the legal system and should never have been brought."

Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=29134164#eCAZKcFL7xJ8p8Uu.99

At least he had his day in court, the good folks from Arkansas never got the chance.

[alanmolstad]

"It is non-justiciable"

Im not sure this is a real word,,,,,but it's kinda the way I was thinking too

[RealFakeHair]

"It is non-justiciable"

Im not sure this is a real word,,,,,but it's kinda the way I was thinking too

Justiciaible, kinda like my love life too.

[Apologette]

Phillips was trying to prove that the cult of Mormonism took money from him under false pretenses, knowing that the cult was bogus, that Smith was a conman, and that they conceal that information (in their vaults). Of course, I agree with him. Mormonism is big business, a multi-billion dollar business, and its leaders have revised the history of the group, along with revising Joe Smith (even his picture), so that it appears as a legitimate religion. Trouble is, Phillips had an opportunity to investigate the cult's claims just as everybody can. He chose not to, and was a well-known and rather powerful figure in the UK branch of the cult - then he realized the whole thing was bogus. He wanted to sue in order to prove that the cult takes money fraudulently. But that won't fly - and the court recently declined to hear the case. You can't prove, after all, that the Mormons are propagating something they absolutely know is a con ***. They say that Phillips has a Plan B - don't know what that would be, but I hope he concentrates on Mormonism instead of attacking beliefs such as the age of the earth, etc. That was a dumb mistake in my opinion. His lawyer obviously knows nothing about cults, and he really needed to hire somebody who does, at least as an advisor. If I'd been his lawyer, I'd have advised that he concentrate on the life of Joseph Smith, and how much the cult has concealed in that regard. Smith was a hoaxter and there's plenty of evidence to prove that. The Kirtland Bank fiasco would be one; his invasion of Missouri another. I don't think he's really interested in recovering his money, however. He's more interested in discrediting the cult so that others won't be taken in. The issue should be "full disclosure."

[RealFakeHair]

Phillips was trying to prove that the cult of Mormonism took money from him under false pretenses, knowing that the cult was bogus, that Smith was a conman, and that they conceal that information (in their vaults). Of course, I agree with him. Mormonism is big business, a multi-billion dollar business, and its leaders have revised the history of the group, along with revising Joe Smith (even his picture), so that it appears as a legitimate religion. Trouble is, Phillips had an opportunity to investigate the cult's claims just as everybody can. He chose not to, and was a well-known and rather powerful figure in the UK branch of the cult - then he realized the whole thing was bogus. He wanted to sue in order to prove that the cult takes money fraudulently. But that won't fly - and the court recently declined to hear the case. You can't prove, after all, that the Mormons are propagating something they absolutely know is a con ***. They say that Phillips has a Plan B - don't know what that would be, but I hope he concentrates on Mormonism instead of attacking beliefs such as the age of the earth, etc. That was a dumb mistake in my opinion. His lawyer obviously knows nothing about cults, and he really needed to hire somebody who does, at least as an advisor. If I'd been his lawyer, I'd have advised that he concentrate on the life of Joseph Smith, and how much the cult has concealed in that regard. Smith was a hoaxter and there's plenty of evidence to prove that. The Kirtland Bank fiasco would be one; his invasion of Missouri another. I don't think he's really interested in recovering his money, however. He's more interested in discrediting the cult so that others won't be taken in. The issue should be "full disclosure."

Yes, we non-LDSinc. Can clearly see Joseph Smith jr. For what he really was, however 12 million folk out there have their eyes covered in a fog, and it is our *** here on earth to keep our lower beam on in hopes they might see.

[Libby]

The problem with this kind of lawsuit is that it leaves every religion open to exactly the same kind of scrutiny. Most religious claims are not provable in a court of law. Can you prove, beyond a doubt, that Jesus Christ rose from the grave? Or that he walked on water?

I don't think the "critics" understand what they leave themselves open to, when they ask for prosecution, in a case like this.

[Apologette]

The problem with this kind of lawsuit is that it leaves every religion open to exactly the same kind of scrutiny. Most religious claims are not provable in a court of law. Can you prove, beyond a doubt, that Jesus Christ rose from the grave? Or that he walked on water?

I don't think the "critics" understand what they leave themselves open to, when they ask for prosecution, in a case like this.

We, can, however, do a pretty good *** of proving that Joseph Smith was a snake oil salesman. But in the long run, the law suit was probably brought to get coverage. I would have liked to have seen the prosecution subpoena the documents in the SLC Mormon vault! The Brethren do misrepresent the cult, I believe. For instance, the Book of Abraham is a quintessential example of a fraud - that alone could be used to identify the claims of the cult that Abraham wrote the book on papyrus (with his own hand) to be totally void of any reality - but I believe the point Phillips was trying to make is that the cult intentionally DOES NOT disclose information, and has taken money from its members based on what has been disclosed. There is NO full disclosure. It was a matter of concealing information. Christians don't conceal information.

[alanmolstad]

I think where there is some merit to this issue is when a teacher makes a statement that is clearly false.

I dont think you can take the leader of the Mormon church to court because of what the church teaches about Adam and god...

But you should be able to take people to court if they personally do something that is a lie, or works to get people to send in money for stuff that was not true....

[Apologette]

I think where there is some merit to this issue is when a teacher makes a statement that is clearly false.

I dont think you can take the leader of the Mormon church to court because of what the church teaches about Adam and god...

But you should be able to take people to court if they personally do something that is a lie, or works to get people to send in money for stuff that was not true....
The lawsuit was too broad and could have been brought against fundamentalist Christians who believe in a young earth. Intentionally concealing information is another story. Under British law there is a provision about taking money under fraudulent circumstances.