I've been active particpant/reader on this board since 2005 so not a troll. I have mostly lurked for the past 4-5 years and rarely post anymore.

I loved the letters Phillips sent back and forth to Holland and I applaud his honesty and bravery overall. I just wonder if it is really worth the effort to go after TSCC in this way. All religions make claims that most of us here believe to be false.

You shouldn't have made it an either/or choice. Time will tell, won't it?

I think it's worth it the sense it is one more cut in the "death by a thousand cuts" scenario. More members will be made aware, those on the fence will be given courage to leave and move on.

I don't see it as a profound blow to corporation, however.

So, is it stupid? No, not really. But it's not an overwhelming victory either. IMO

Replying to stoppedtheinsanity:

I didn't say that I read every post on the forum. I check in fairly regularly though. Sorry if I missed previous posts on this topic.

The reason I even mentioned troll is because it seems to come up a lot and some of the regulars throw it out there when someone without a lot of posts says something that not everyone agrees with.

Didn't you read the other threads where they call out trolls? The first step in NOT being a troll is to NOT say you are not a troll.

What you are saying had already been discussed many time here on other threads. I'm sure you have read them since you are a regular here.

You said:

"All religions make claims that most of us here believe to be false."

So that makes it right?

Whatever else happens it brings the issue of fraud to the front - where it should be.

Agreed, stupid is probably a harsh word. I guess my concern is that rather than raise awareness, it will simply contribute to the persecution complex and cause more proverbial circling of the wagons. Not sure what it will accomplish in the long term.

Fair observation. For many it will have the "strengthing of testimony" effect.

A) it's not about religious beliefs, it is about verifiable facts

B) it isn't a law suit, they are criminal charges

C) your argument is the exact same as the TBM argument, and inherently different from the "this case is stupid" argument made by the regulars here.

Have you read anything anyone has said about this other than the deseret news? Like the stickied post about it up top?

Lawsuit, criminal charges, whatever. I'm not a lawyer and I never read the Deseret News. I don't claim to understand the intricacies of the case. I was just curious to see what everyone's thoughts were.

I just personally don't see the point of bringing criminal charges of this nature against a leader of a religious institution. I'm an ex-mo atheist with no ties to any religion for what it's worth.

No, that has nothing to do with it, nice evasive tactics. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand the difference.

Veiling obvious attempts at inflammatory comments so that you can maintain plausible deniability is a perfect troll tactic. If you are trying not to look like one, you are doing everything the opposite of the way you should. You bring an obviously unpopular opinion, without having read any of the previous analysis or discussion on it (including about a dozen topics on the first page, one of which is a sticky), claiming not to be a troll, and claiming every majority characteristic an outsider would think of, and demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of the community while claiming to be an insider. I could be wrong, but this whole thread stinks to high heaven. An exmo atheist of all people should at the very least understand why people would want to go after a mo religious leader, or any other religious leader of that matter, even if they themselves don't wish to do so. This is especialy true for someone who would have been reading posts at RfM for 5+ years.

You are either trying to incite flames, or are trying to passive aggressively suggest that it is bizarre and stupid to attack organized religion. Neither of which are good ideas around here. Although, you would be better served doing the latter outright, instead of trying to hide it like this. Waters down your message.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2014 12:37PM by notnewatthisanymore.

"I just personally don't see the point of bringing criminal charges of this nature against a leader of a religious institution."

Really? This might help you understand it:


http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/27/france.scientology.fraud/index.html

The fact that you're still referring to it as a lawsuit makes me think you might not understand the case that well.

Well, it IS easier to trivialize if you call it a lawsuit for religious beliefs rather than charges of fraud for misrepresentation of facts.

It's just you.

I guess the point of this proceeding just will not be understood by most people who hear of it.

The summons is to investigate financial fraud, not religious beliefs. I presume it is not 'stupid' to the UK to determine if

a) Its citizens are being defrauded
b) Its tax revenues are being defrauded

That is why the Magistrate issued the summons after extensive review of Phillips' evidence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2014 12:24PM by Void K. Packer.

I know... We need a sound bite. Something short and easy to remember that gets the point across.

They have: bizarre allegations

We need something like: It's not about religion, it's about fraud. It's about fleecing the flock.

...get some nice alliteration going there or something to help it stick.

redman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All religions make claims that most of us here believe
> to be false.

And I am sure on the Scientology recovery board, or on the JW recovery board, or on the Seventh Day Adventists recovery board, when someone steps forward (and lays out the case for fraud there) there will be a lot of cheering and discussing.

I think it's good news. The very fact that Deseret News is having to wordsmith carefully phrased stories in response is terrific. And the fact that at least some elements of TSCC's army of attorneys is having to devote energy to it is good too. (And it's not as though had this case not been brought that those resources would have been devoted to feeding the hungry or clothing the naked.)

I think Tom Phillips is brave for doing it. And I don't think "stupid" fits.

And as for the "circle the wagons" syndrome, sure there will be some of that. But if you apply that logic completely, then no one would ever want to challenge TSCC on anything, as any challenge is seen as persecution. Let them cry "persecution," I think people will see through that as they do it more and more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2014 12:24PM by left4good.

1. It's not a lawsuit, but a criminal prosecution

2. Yes, I think there were some strategic errors. See my thread here http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1167119

3. But, the Book of Abraham representation has legs, in my opinion. It is only a matter of whether that statement was material enough to warrant a "dishonesty" finding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2014 12:24PM by Richard G. Spot.

Please read my comments on the same thread

Probably the most powerful effect of this case has already happened. When I google "Thomas S. Monson," a news story about him being tried on fraud charges is the second link (after Wikipedia). That is what people will see when mishies tell them about their "living prophet."

This is already a victory, even if the case gets thrown out of court tomorrow!

+1
When I was a TBM I didn't know that the BOA was totally wrong translated it took me reading Mormonthink to realize that JS made it up without actually translating it.

It seems to me that there are many people posting here who believe they are more knowledgeable than the the Judge who issued the summons or the legal experts advising Tom, so rather than pontificating on all aspects of English law why not simply sit back & let the genuine experts have their say on March 14th. We've been waiting for months for something like this so another two or three weeks won't hurt anyone.

How did you hear about it?

The reason I ask is because you obviously didn't hear about it from reading RfM since that is a huge asked-and-answered on this forum.

You say you "never read the Deseret News," as if that would be the expected source of information for allegations of fraud against the living prophet. Cold day in hell.

So you didn't actually read any of the lawsuit or any of the weeks of comments here on RfM, yet you have an opinion regarding the charges being "stupid." You are right--it is too strong a word--the word you are looking for is "ignrent."

Only Susan I/S can id a troll, but you have to admit, you do sound like one.


Anagrammy

I'm not a troll, I swear to god.

You can't call me a troll, it's a state law.

I've been on this board before, look it up.

Shut up Randy

I've got to go.

Signed,Donnie Baker

(sarcasm)

You've been saying that ever since you played quarterback for the university of phoenix.

The upside is that it has created a lot of negative publicity for LDS, Inc.

The other thing the suit underscores is the idea of religion being held accountable especially for outrageous claims like the BoA being a translation of what is written the the source papyri. When something like that is so easy to disprove, why shouldn't they be held accountable?

So, I wish them the best. LDS, Inc. richly deserves any negative consequences that come to them as a result.

Exactly. Why should a religion be held to any different kind of standard when it comes to claims about their "product"?

I like it and the buzz it has created.

At the end of the day nothing that's wrong ever changes unless someone stands up for something, even if it only starts the process, it needs to be done.