Oh Buggers!



Media and LDS apologists at FAIRMormon have used catch phrases to
describe the Mormon Fraud Case in the UK as an attack on religious
belief. In a blog, FAIR contributor and “US Civil Defense Lawyer”
aptly named Steve Densely Jr. opined that: "English law does not allow
courts to adjudicate on issues of religious belief."

However, I believe the House of Lords (UK Supreme Court) would quite
disagree with the media and FAIR that this a case about religious
worship. And they do adjudicate on these issues. Have done so very
nicely in fact. There’s a strong precedent in a case brought to the
House of Lords by the tax agent (Valuator) against the LDS Corporation.
The LDS Corporation argued unsuccessfully that its UK temple property
should not be taxed. See this link: Judgments - Gallagher (Valuation
Officer) V Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for the actual
decision, quoted below. (hat tip to Christopher Ralph for finding and
providing this link.)


In the decision that was on appeal (dismissed in 2008), the primary
council for the LDS Corporation (Sumption QC) attempted to define for
the Lords that the LDS temple is a public place of worship. The Lords
went through each of the candidate definitions of various structures
owned by the LDS Corporation to categorize and define the temple. They
ruled it is not as a charity (“it would be unwise to regard charity
law as a paradigm of rationality” para. 7, 9), not a training center
(para. 19-20), not administrative offices (para. 10, 19), not intended
to support maintenance of the grounds and buildings (para. 21), not a
hotel of “accommodations” to patrons (para. 21), and not a workshop,
a daycare facility or cafeteria (para. 1).

So how did the Lords decide to define the temple?

Paragraph 5 is key:

“…the Temple is not a place of “public religious worship”
because it is not open to the public. It is not even open to all
Mormons. The right of entry is reserved to members who have acquired a
“recommend” from the bishop after demonstrating belief in Mormon
doctrine, an appropriate way of life and payment of the required
contribution to church funds. Such members are called Patrons and the
rituals which take place in the Temple are exclusive to them. These
facts are agreed.” (emphasis added)

These facts are agreed: not a place of public religious worship.
Exclusive “patrons” -- not every Mormon (and certainly not the
general public) -- must adhere to strict criteria to enter the temple,
including demonstrating belief in Mormon doctrine and paying the
required contribution.

The language in this House of Lords decision is a precedent. The LDS
Corp lost its appeal to define the temple as a place of public religious
worship. The Lords define it as a place of ritual exclusive to paying
patrons.

Lord Hope of Craighead tells the LDS council: “Temple is not entitled
to exemption” (para. 36) and that “I cannot accept Mr Sumption’s
primary argument that the Temple is a place of public religious
worship.” And this based on an earlier precedent (Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (VO) [1964] AC 420) in which
“Parliament has been content that the words “a place of public
religious worship” should continue to receive the interpretation that
the House gave to them in Henning.” (para. 26)

Oh snap!

Sorry LDS Corp, your temple is not exempt. All the Lords agreed to
dismiss, most of them using similar language. It's not a charity
either. And worse, the House of Lords has ruled that payment AND
demonstration of belief in certain beliefs are the basis for exclusive
entry into this non-exempt, non-religious, ritual performing, patron
house. Not just the basis, but “required” was the word.

Once again, as I wrote in "Obey, Pay and don't look at Internet-Hearsay"
and as Lord Hoffman elucidates a "recommend" giving "right of entry"
makes the temple worthiness interview is a key part of how this fraud
case comes together. Exclusivity is dependent on accepting beliefs that
Phillips argues have been falsely represented and payment is secured
before you can go in. The word “required” is used in Lord
Hoffman’s decisive precedent. Tithing is “required”.

Mormons have argued that it is not a requirement to belief and tithing
is not forced. But the House of Lords seemed to disagree with the
Mormons.

Oh double snap!

Oh buggers!

Sorry, FAIR. Sorry, Monson.


Bloody Brilliant, my Lords. Praise the House of Lords!



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2014 05:50PM by Susan I/S.

I wouldn't gloat too much. The issues are similar, but not exactly the same. You've shown the case is not an obvious dismissal, but it is still be no means a slam dunk win either.

Even in the best of circumstances, going to court is a roll of the dice.

If they get a single non-Mormon on the jury who has been excluded from a loved ones wedding, I would expect the chances of success to rise sharply.

Yes....but I would rather have a completely impartial jury.

Thanks for the information.

Trial is always a roll if the dice. Tom has a strong case and a brilliant strategy, but I am cautiously optimistic. And I wouldn't bet on getting any jurors with past Mormon experiences. Must justice systems try to eliminate potential jurors with that level bias.

Gotta love the Brits. They're not afraid of using some common sense when it comes to religious freedom.

Do the church pay taxes and such for their temples in the UK?

Is this why they must get married civilly because they cannot married in place that is not for public worship?

The church does have to pay taxes on the two temples in the UK because they are not open for public worship.
The church appealed this a few years ago and lost the case.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080730/gallag-1.htm

Actually, from my article, they fought this back in the 1960s and again a few years ago. They've been at it for a while and taken their shots over and over.

Thats exactly why UK Mormons need to be married civaly as well. Theres even leagal required words 'untill death do us part' which theres always a lecture from the bishop about how we dont beleve it but have to say it which in my opionion ruins the wedding.

No, it's not about the worship. There are all kinds of places licensed for weddings in the UK - but they have to be open to the public.

In other words, the House of Lords screws the House of the Lord.

Heh heh, don't you just LOVE to hear the temple described in ORDINARY language, NOT the stupid over emotionalised stuff tscc uses. I LOVE it!!!

The British House of Lords is NOT analogous to the Supreme Court. They are much the same as the US Senate, except they are appointed, not elected.The UK has it's own Supreme Court.

Ron Burr