A positive ruling on this case would be tantamount to saying that all religions are frauds. Which they are, but no one is going to go that far in court.
There'd be no religion in a perfect world, but this is far from it. I agree that religious freedom is important given the malaise of society, no matter how much I disagree with their beliefs.
But if they could be stopped from making blatantly false claims and charging money for it, that'd be nice.
The greatest thing would be to remove the tax-free status of churches, so they'd be forced to operate like any legitimate business.
Without knowing plans B-E it's hard to know whether there's any basis to move them forward in light of the judgement. The judge was quite scathing on the foundation for the summons.
Still I find it interesting that a member can take the prophet to court and still not be ex'd for apostasy. Of course we all know the reasons why (2nd anointing), although TSCC wouldn't admit this. Whilst it probably won't, this precedent SHOULD make it very difficult for them to try and excommunicate anyone else for apostasy without looking completely inconsistent.
The church morphs, but mostly is extremely evasive and sneaky. But I think the church would choose to officiate over gay temple marriages before they would abandon their money train. Tom's got an evasive, moving target to go after. I wouldn't expect them to make any short term mistakes.
Reading the jpgs of the official decision on the other thread, on the third page: someone correct me if I'm wrong, but does it look like TSCC is now trying to prosecute Tom for not being qualified to be prosecuting in court? The judge said it wasn't a decision he needed to comment on.
It is absolutely evident that the BOA is a fraud. It is absolutely evident that the church represents it as a fact.
This has to be the start of a learning curve in taking cases like this to court. Tom simply needs time and support to regroup and analyse the first round to look to strengthen his case.
The Judge confirmed the case is not vexatious, therefore, that means it had merit just insufficient evidence to demonstrate the link needed to progress to a full trial.
The PR value on this is tremendous for both sides, as the church will spin it as a victory and vindication at General Conference, but might need to be careful on the words they use. Where as Anti LDS sites will be clear to point out that the Church now argues it isn't true but a belief and will be able to monitor all church statements going forward to that effect.
This overtime will become visible to the members.
great work Tom, this is just the beginning.
You can doubt if you wish, but sooner or later this case will proceed and the evidence, the facts will come to light.
I haven't stated anything either way, because I had no idea how it would go. I don't know anything about law.
I can be supportive of those involved, but not have an opinion as to how it would turn out.
I don't think anyone is celebrating the end of the Church. That's a bit naive.
My only opinion has been that no matter what happened, it would put the Church on notice that it can't continue to get away with lying to people. It accomplishes that no matter which way the wind blows and that's a good thing.
Before the decision was handed down, who correctly stated the reason why Tom Phillips would lose? Whoever it was (if anyone) have the right to feel pretty smug right now. Everyone else, including myself, have some learning to do.
For all those shouting 'told you so' may I remind you that the case was dismissed on points of law, not on any evidence presented & that leaves the door open for a further summons to be issued once those points have been addressed.
It's clear that the church wished to have 'revenge' on Tom but the Judge would have none of it so let's have a little less despondancy & a lot more of 'we can bring the church down'
I don't think accurately predicting this case would be thrown out is anything to gloat over. The ruling said the issue was non-justiciable. That's the point. So the people saying that a court--or this court--wouldn't try to discriminate between fact (this book was translated from this document) and belief (God in Heaven is the Almighty Father), were right, even if tithing is mandatory. That just means if a religious con can shake down victims in perpetuity and the arm of the government designed to prohibit such action won't review the case. What's to crow about?
This court fears the effects of a case like this on secularism. Will the court be inundated with cases in which a member of one religion sues a different religion, or sues over issues of orthodoxy? Non-justiciability keeps the entire subject out of court.
Why not appeal? Maybe the issue can't be made justiciable. But the court pointed the prosecution in the direction to try: what is the jury being asked to decide? However, the court also claimed the nexus between Monson and the fraudulent statements wasn't strong enough to support a criminal prosecution. That will be hard to overcome; the evidence presented is what it is.
What has this accomplished? It has forced the Mormon church to speak through lawyers about what their words really mean: The LDS church teachings are not truths. They are merely beliefs. That is now a legally defined statement of record.
Further, they have offered that tithing is merely optional. Some member somewhere, sometime in the near future will find this not true and will protest it. This will be highlighted.
We are moving from doctrinal and historical issues to tithing and financial controversy. The LDS church's financial records will eventually be scrutinized.
You are right, of course, Jesus. It's just a sad d@mn day. I had hoped to wake up to an international media storm. You know, pertaining to the utter collapse of the Mormon church.
Tom thought he was different than the rest of us. Many of us have thought about court action against the LDS church, but we knew it would never advance. He needs to do what the rest of us have done or are trying to do...let it go. We've all lost money, time, and loved ones to something very evil. Something that lies daily and extorts money out of people. But our western societies let religion do that. It didn't matter if it was in the US, Canada, or the UK, religion was going to be given a wide latitude to seduce, lie, mis-represent, and extort money. The difference was that we had managable size egos, and thus were grounded in reality.
How do you think those policies will change? How do you think any amoral legal practice has ever changed? Definitely not by people with your attitude, but by those with Tom's. Regardless of the outcome or the future, Tom should be applauded for trying. And everyone that is getting their panties in a wad over how much of his time and his money he is wasting are just being stupid. If you don't like it, it doesn't need to affect you, just let it go.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2014 09:26AM by notnewatthisanymore.