...a mention of the UK Fraud Case summons...

"Salt Lake City-based church representatives also could not immediately provide an update on a summons for LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson to appear in a British court on charges of fraud brought by a former Mormon bishop, who alleges the faith’s teachings are deceptive.
A district judge in Westminster Magistrates’ Court of London previously issued a summons to Monson, considered a "prophet, seer and revelator" in Mormonism, to appear March 14."


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57631967-180/church-court-lds-temple.html.csp


funny comment from article:

"Its selective prosecution. When the British Governement calls up the Archbishop of Cantabury to answer on fraud charges, lets talk."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2014 11:31AM by zenmaster.

Yeah, they selectively prosecuted a guy in my city recently for shooting someone. They really should have brought in everyone, ever.

Wait, this guy has an idea. Lump every case ever into one big basket, take 15 years to prosecute and then after that disband the courts. New crimes will just be added to the master case.

That wouldn't confuse things at all. It would work perfectly.

zenmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> funny comment from article:
>
> "Its selective prosecution. When the British
> Governement calls up the Archbishop of Cantabury
> to answer on fraud charges, lets talk."


That comment is telling in some ways. Is the commenter recognizing that all religions lie, so why just pick on the mormons?

Here is an article from Deseret News. Different spin (as you might imagine)

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865597954/Temple-tax-European-court-rules-LDS-Church-must-pay-local-property-tax-for-Preston-England-temple.html

Also the comment section is decidedly different :)

so the church does not like feeling discriminated against and having its religious rights refused when it comes to money…but is swift to discriminate against impoverished sinlge parents who either pay tithe and lose the roof over their heads or be told the gates of heaven are closed against them…quick to discriminate and isolate anyone who does not fit the mould.

Boo hoo cry 'em a river 'cause their closed secret cult building has to pay property tax like everyone else. Christ, they're getting an 80% reduction on even that because they're a "charity". wankers

When the Archbishop of Cantabury says you can't participate in church functions of worship and/ or marriage if you don't pay 10% minimum of your income to him......lets talk.

From the comments below the SL Trib article:

"You've gotta hand it to the Brits. They're experts when it comes to sniffing out fairy tales.

It's laughable that the mormons think these are human rights violations. Apparently in their book it's not a human rights violation to systematically defraud people."

"Its selective prosecution. When the British Governement calls up the Archbishop of Cantabury to answer on fraud charges, lets talk."

I sometimes wonder about the mental state of the authors of such drivel, what does it take to show them that this case has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with religious beliefs? This case concerns fraudulently misleading people for financial gain.

Whether the head of the church of England misleads people as regards the truth of it's doctrine is neither here not there, it's certainly NOT done for financial gain & ALL church buildings are open to the public. The CofE probably gives more in charitable aid in one week than the LDS gives in a year & thereby qualifies as a genuine charity.
Here’s just a small sampling of the work it does.
http://www.churchcare.co.uk/churches/open-sustainable/churches-as-temporary-shelters

I don't know anything about US law but I do know that in this country (The UK) knowingly making misleading statements for financial gain is FRAUD & under that law there is no difference between a used car salesman & a corporation posing as a church.

Incidentally, I have nothing at all to do with the CofE but I do like to be fair.

"Salt Lake City-based church representatives also could not immediately provide an update on a summons for LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson to appear in a British court on charges of fraud brought by a former Mormon bishop, who alleges the faith’s teachings are deceptive."

Only ten days to go.

I find the 80% tax exemption very puzzling, considering the temple is private and not open to the public.
The judgement seems to state that the church being a charitable organisation, is the reasoning behind the exemption. How can temple rituals be deemed charitable?
It also states that members are required to pay tithing to qualify for temple worship.
Will the court ruling have any bearing, good or bad, on the upcoming court case?
I wonder what anointedone makes of it all?

The 80% tax deduction thing is all a matter of UK tax law. The issue before the EU was whether UK's application of its tax law impinges on LDS religious freedom.

According to the opinion, UK allows an 80% exemption from property taxes for all charitable organizations, which TSSC qualifies for under UK charity law. How exactly the temple's used doesn't bear on the 80% charitable exemption.

The issue is that under UK law, a charitable organization gets a 100% real property exemption for buildings open to the public. The UK government, the taxing authority, concluded that the temple was not open to the public and so taxed TSSC on 20% of the temple's value. TSSC objected to the EU, after losing its appeal in the UK. TSSC said it should get the 100% exemption, not just the 80% exemption.

The court sided with the UK. TSSC requires Mormons to pay 10% of their income to be allowed to enter the temple. The court observed that not only were members of the general public barred from the temple, general members of TSSC also were barred from the temple!

TSSC argued that taxing them an additional 20% interfered with their choice of how to worship. The EU said no it didn't. TSSC chose to impose a 10% admission charge on its members in order to enter the temple, and it was free to do so; but doing so prevents members of the public from entering. The court explained that the UK gives the additional 20% exemption in order to give citizens of the UK more access to charitable buildings, including places they may worship. If the place of worship doesn't allow the public in, it doesn't provide a public benefit that would qualify for a tax exemption. The court concluded that this is reasonable for the UK, especially in light of the fact that the UK did grant 100% exemption to TSSC's other buildings in the same location that do admit the general public, like the stake center.

+ 1

Just saved this explanation. Excellent and Thank You MCR.

MCR, excellent summary. Thanks.

Is there a reason why this only applies to the Preston, England temple and not also to the London, England temple?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2014 01:32PM by Bite Me.

For the same reason that the Supreme Court's Prop 8 decision only applied in California and not the rest of the country. It's a local issue.

It was the local Lancashire tax authority who first rated the temple as belonging in the 20% tax rate. The church applied to have that decision changed, and the Lancashire Valuation Tribunal accepted the application. But then the UK Lands Tribunal overturned the decision. After that, the church took it to the Court of Appeals, where it was dismissed, and then the House of Lords, where it was dismissed again.

It was only after these losses that the church took the case to the EU Court of Human Rights, lodging against the UK government for dismissing the case. The case was specifically about the Preston temple, not all church properties.

QUOTE - "Its selective prosecution. When the British Governement calls up the Archbishop of Cantabury to answer on fraud charges, lets talk."

I sometimes wonder about the mental state of the authors of such drivel, what does it take to show them that this case has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with religious beliefs? This case concerns fraudulently misleading people for financial gain.

Whether the head of the church of England misleads people as regards the truth of it's doctrine is neither here not there, it's certainly NOT done for financial gain & ALL church buildings are open to the public. The CofE probably gives more in charitable aid in one week than the LDS gives in a year & thereby qualifies as a genuine charity.
Here’s just a small sampling of the work it does.
http://www.churchcare.co.uk/churches/open-sustainable/churches-as-temporary-shelters

I don't know anything about US law but I do know that in this country (The UK) knowingly making misleading statements for financial gain is FRAUD & under that law there is no difference between a used car salesman & a corporation posing as a church.

Incidentally, I have nothing at all to do with the CofE but I do like to be fair".

SNAP.

Brits believe in all kinds of BS completely unsupported by any kind of evidence. Christ coming back from the dead, the Koran is the perfect word of God, Crystal healing... it's a free country and you're absolutely entitled to believe in it and go round teaching it to others.

It's when you cross the line of saying give me your money and I can cure your cancer with my magic crystals that the authorities have a problem with it because it's FRAUD.

The Archbishop of Canterbury stays the safe side of the line because he's saying "Jesus wants you to give money to help the poor, and a fiver in the collection plate would be nice but I won't insist on it". Islam stays the right side of the line because it teaches that Allah wants you to give money to the poor, etc etc.

The LDS church says give *US* 10% of your income. Big difference, and it's going to be interesting to see how this one goes down in a court of law and more importantly the court of pubic opinion.

Excerpt from Des News article on the context of temple worship:

"The LDS Church had argued those benefits include, the court noted, "extensive participation in charitable and humanitarian endeavors, commitment to good citizenship, and careful devotion to family responsibilities. Sacred pledges made in the course of collective worship in the temple, which were then lived out in the world, resounded to the benefit of society at large."

What a load of BS. Pledging to give everything to the church and blindly follow leaders is so far from what they describe above. If the Judges could have visited the temple and observed the endowment, they'd probably have a very different view.....oh hold on, they can't visit because it's not open to the public. Idiots.

Best comment on Des News story:

"Why was the church arguing in court that the Temple is a public place of worship? Just to save paying some property taxes? Better, in my opinion, to acknowledge the obvious - that the Temple is not open to the public, avoid spending all of the money on attorneys, and simply pay 20% of the property tax. It seems to me the money spent arguing in court could have been better spent to help those in need."

Yep, and that's how your tithing sacrifice was splurged on lawyers this year in the UK. Last year it was a multi-£ PR campaign in London....how did that go by the way? Not much recent talk of the thousands of baptisms resulting?!


Worst comment:

"The temple is open to all members of the public who meet the requirements to hold a temple recommend. And no member of the public is prohibited from meeting those standards. In fact, all are encouraged to do so. I'm not sure what law the judges are applying but the temple meets the commonly understood definition of public."

....ok, so a member of the public turns up at the temple and asks what he has to do to enter? - join the church, give up tea, coffee & all alcohol, wait a year, pay 10% tax on income, get married if living with a partner of the opposite sex (split up if gay), confess sins twice etc...... Any other 'public' places quite as difficult to get into?

The Preston (Chorley) Temple participated in the Heritage Open Day events a couple of years ago, might be three. They had tours of the grounds and facilities of the entire complex with specialist garden and architectural tours. I don't think it has appeared in the listings since as a location to visit.

http://www.heritageopendays.org.uk/about

Not inside the temple itself though.

IN regards to the "worst" comment: Applying that same logic, all private country clubs are open to the public as long as a person pays the $50,000 buy-in. Nobody is prohibited if they meet the buy-in standards. All are encouraged to do so. See, private clubs really are open to the public.

Because the court's decision went against LD$ Inc, the mormons were ordered to pay all the court costs, right?

How will this affect the morg in the USA? If possible?