I am not a lawyer, nor did I ever work as a fraud investigator. This is just opinions and guesses, based on my own reading and thoughts, and I may be totally off.

I don't think the church can get in trouble for having crazy beliefs. Nor do I think the church can get in trouble for changing one set of crazy beliefs to another set of less crazy beliefs. I believe what makes it fraud though, is that they have knowingly changed their beliefs, in order to make them appear less crazy, and then knowingly lied to the members of the church about what they used to believe. That is where they cross into fraud, and it may be the single biggest trap for a "prophet" led religion.

All religions evolve, and change their beliefs, but when God is supposedly giving you direct instructions, you either have to hide this part, or admit that it doesn't work that way. Basically, every time we are told that a prophet was speaking as a man, when what he said used to be the official policy of the church, the cult has knowingly committed fraud. Especially when they hold up their supposed infallibility as the reason members must give tithes.

I am a lawyer (unfortunately). In the U.S., the 1st Amendment to the Constitution protects religious beliefs and affiliations from fraud claims and the like. It's nearly bullet proof.

If knowingly changing beliefs were to be grounds for fraud, no organization would ever state a set of beliefs, for fear that changing them would result in fraud charges or lawsuits. It's what we call the "cooling effect." Furthermore, allowing any such legal action to proceed would violate the very intent of the 1st Amendment. One person, or a group of people should be able to change their religious beliefs without the fear of government intervention in any form. Likewise, those individual affiliated with any organization has the right to no longer affiliate when said beliefs do change.


So, in the U.S., Court intervention is a no-go. What's the solution? Don't fall for bullshit and do research before you give money to any organization. Buyer beware.

I didn't say you couldn't change your beliefs, I am saying that changing your beliefs, then lying about having done so, could be grounds for fraud. You are right, it would never fly in an American court, but what about in England or Europe where the 1st Amendment is not part of their law?

And if you're born into it, it's because you were less valiant in the pre-existence. Someone needs to pass a law to protect children from being force-fed bullshit.

"Don't fall for bullshit and do research before you give money to any organization. Buyer beware."

I agree with this. Gullible people bear some responsibility. But when a corporation takes people's money, it has certain obligations and responsibilities, full disclosure being one of them. That's why the disclaimer was invented.

Ok if everybody was an adult, I'd be more ok with this. But I was born in the covenant. I was raised on this stuff, was singing follow the prophet and book of mormon stories etc. The law didn't protect me at all. And if the 1st amendment means the law will never protect the children then this cycle will continue. I appreciate it's meant to protect people's freedom to believe, but indoctrinating children and youth is clearly not protecting them.

Sure I figured it out, at age 33... after I'd made many many important life decisions and with a very real risk of losing my marriage and family because my wife disagrees.

I'm with you on this one ftw. Not sure how an 8 yr old can be expected to process all this info and choose not to get baptised in the first place. I got to 25/26 and also made many huge life decisions based on the church before I realized the truth.

At least they pretend to let you decide to make that decision at 8.

For Males, we have to surgically lose a piece of ourselves as soon as we're born. :/

I wish the whole thing was only about the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. They are both very proveable hoaxes, especially in a court of law. The big 15 advancing this hoax is the next logical step. Having to claim to believe in this hoax and pay an exhorbitant amount of money to be in good standing in the fraudulent organization is ghastly.

When you throw in Adam and Eve, the 6,000 year old Earth, DNA, etc. you're slaughtering other people's sacred cows and they immediately focus on that and lose sight of the real problem.

I agree with you NormaRae. The focus should be on their books. The Book of Abraham fraud is clear. That alone would suffice.

NormaRae Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish the whole thing was only about the Book of
> Mormon and Book of Abraham. They are both very
> proveable hoaxes, especially in a court of law.
> The big 15 advancing this hoax is the next logical
> step. Having to claim to believe in this hoax and
> pay an exhorbitant amount of money to be in good
> standing in the fraudulent organization is
> ghastly.
>
> When you throw in Adam and Eve, the 6,000 year old
> Earth, DNA, etc. you're slaughtering other
> people's sacred cows and they immediately focus on
> that and lose sight of the real problem.


this gives them pieces of the lawsuit to throw out, and then still be working on the fraud case for BOM and Book of Abraham, imo

I would think the extorted tithing would be the problem. A group could change their bat-sh*t crazy beliefs a thousand times if they didn't force people to pay money in order to comply with those beliefs. If they are changing things and then using those beliefs to frighten or obligate people to give money, that is what could be the problem. If it's a donation, that's one thing but we all know that Mormons say you HAVE to pay to be compliant.

I am a lawyer. I have been in practice as a litigator for over 37 years. I appeared in the highest appellate court in my state in the early 1980s on a fraud case that defined fraud and constructive fraud and that case has been repeatedly cited ever since in other fraud cases discussing the definition and application of the fraud law in my state. Your thoughts are on point with the following refinement that so many people seem to be missing the last 24 hours and which may carry the UK case. TSCC committed fraud when it sent its legions of missionaries out to convince people to join up and pay money WHEN IT FAILED TO EXPLAIN TO THE INVESTIGATORS THAT THERE WERE ALTERNATE VIEW POINTS ABOUT THE B OF M, BOOK OF ABRAHAM AND RELATED TOPICS. One has a legal duty to disclose known, significant facts about a transaction where money will change hands if the seller knows that those facts are significant enough to alter the buyers decision about the transaction. By failing to explain that there are alternative viewpoints on some of its core doctrine TSCC committed fraud every time it converted a new member and took their money. If the law in the UK is remotely similar to the above and the prosecutors focus on that simple issue, Monson and TSCC could well be convicted of fraud. If that happens the plaintiff's bar could well pile on with class action suits that would get us all a refund, with interest, of our donations. It has been apparent to me for many years as the DNA evidence accumulated and the B of A was debunked that TSCC was committing fraud over and over with every conversion. The only thing that has surprised me is that it took this long to finally get a case before a court. Fight on Tom. You're on the right track. I wish I was a UK lawyer with a law license, I'd come help you.

Thanks for helping us out. That makes complete sense.

You should talk to some U.S attorneys who have discussed bringing a fraud claim here. :)

that most contracts include a clause stating that you waive your rights to this statute.

Thanks for your offer of help "I wish I was a UK lawyer with a law license, I'd come help you."

Please email me at tomphillips@romneysfaith.com as you may be able to help, plus this will roll into a US action.

Thanks,
Tom

Great job Tom Phillips! Cheers all around the house.

This will be interesting and entertaining to follow in the coming months.

I don't know about England or Europe, but I would assume they would have to grant a lot of latitude, given their millennia of dealings with the Catholic church.

An organization's changing of beliefs does not affect an individual's beliefs. Affiliation and religious convictions are distinct. But, I see your point. If an organization espouses one set of beliefs that induces individuals into joining and donating money, then we find out that the organization lied about the beliefs, then there MAY be some merit to it, even in an American court. But, the fraud MUST be in the inducement to relieve individuals of money or other receiptable value (not just efforts).


EDIT:

Yeah, what he said....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 10:53AM by freedomshusband.

Have you been missold personal protection insurance? Have you suffered loss as a result of an accident that was not your fault? Did you pay tithing to the Mormon Church?

Lawyers will be rubbing their hands with glee if Monson is found guilty.

The part I think everyone is missing is that no one is forced to pay tithing. Coerced YES, lied to most likely unknowingly YES, but not forced. You are not excommunicated, or even disfellowshipped for not paying your tithing.

What about the threat of being burned as stubble for not paying your 'fire insurance'?

"The part I think everyone is missing is that no one is forced to <give Bernie Madoff their money>. Coerced YES, lied to most likely unknowingly YES, but not forced. You are not <murdered>, or even <beaten> for not <giving Bernie Madoff your money>."

I think this exactly what the Church will argue, though it is disingenuous in the extreme since you CANNOT be exalted without temple ordinances and you CANNOT receive temple ordinances without paying tithing.

read the reply above from "havetostayhidden"

TSCC didn't have to force anyone to pay them to commit fraud - all they had to do was cash the checks

the fraud was in not disclosing information

If you are denied participation in the sacraments for nonpayment, via a temple tecommend veing witheld fir being a non full tithe payer (particulary if thete us evidence that other non full tithepayers received ore preferential treatment or were required to provide less proof of full payment) can a case be made in civil court that one persons rights were violated? Or can a contracts case be made, that one person was baited and switched in that the product offered was not delivered upon demand at payment time?

Bishops have a handbook; if they deviate from the handbook knowingly, giving preferential payment terms to one which is not made available to the other, or lied when asked directly about what constitutes a full tithe, in order to wring more money from one--but relaxes the rule and accepts less money from the other, and money changed hands both times, is there any case of any kind there?

A promised action/product that was contracted to be delivered to the consumer upon payment was withheld from said consumer, after payment was made.

Obviously not a lawyer, here. Just thinking out loud.

Someone made a comment that all churches could be charged with making fraudulent claims if it came down to it. I happen to be Catholic. The church teaches the "real presence" based on the gospel of John, but when I was receiving instructions nobody tried to sweep that belief under the rug because it was "crazy". The instructors aren't told to give us milk before meat. They proclaimed it from the rooftop. When missionaries are subliminally taught to withhold certain facts until the convert is sufficiently mature enough to handle it, there is something patently dishonest about it. It isn't till AFTER they are baptized that they start to learn this stuff. Most mainline churches proclaim their beliefs all too happily.

Havetostayhidden has pretty much made my comments redundant but I might as well say what’s on my mind.
It hardly matters what US law has to say concerning religious matters. This is a case being tried in the UK under English law & furthermore it has nothing to do with religious doctrine or belief.
The issue is one of fraud; can it be shown to the courts satisfaction that the LDS knowingly misled people regarding LDS doctrine for financial gain?
Whether Monson puts in an appearance or not is neither here nor there, my understanding is that the magistrates court is for a hearing to decide if there is a case to answer.
When the historical record is examined, when statements made by LDS ‘prophets’ are shown to be untrue & the claims of an organization registered as a charity are provably false then I’m quite sure the magistrates will decide there is a case to answer. The case will then be moved to a Crown Court for a criminal trial, a request will be made for extradition should Monson not appear & will almost certainly be granted, fraud is fraud whatever side of the pond you happen to live on.
Once again, this case has nothing to do with religious freedom it’s about using that religious freedom for financial gain.

If Monson or the church in general could suffer significant damage over this item, it would be worth every penny I've paid. I would gladly wave good-bye to the tens of thousands just to see the squirming.

...and what effect it has on "hastening the work"