For the lawyers out there: If you are required to profess a belief in the patently false (First Nations/Native Americans are really Semitic Hebrews, Iron Age civilisation in ancient America, European crops originating in the Americas, non-extinct prehistoric Ice Age megafauna, etc) in order to be a member along with a coerced donation to obtain a temple recommend how is that not fraud?


Note: This isn't the same thing as an omnipotent God in the Old Testament reversing gravity, making manna fall from the sky, and/or stopping the Earth from rotating. I'm asking about scientifically provable facts that don't involve supposed divine intervention.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2016 12:05PM by anybody.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but ...

In matters of faith, it's difficult to insert the concept of coercion apart from actual acts of physical intimidation -- which are illegal apart from whatever else is taking place. There is no such thing as a "mandatory belief." Anyone is free to walk away and shed their belief at any time.

Freedom of religion in the US indemnifies virtually any teaching from accountability that does not otherwise violate our laws.

Who is twisting your arm "to profess a belief in the patently false " " in order to be a member"...?

Was someone holding a gun to your head, threatening your life?

It's called free will, or in Mormon think free agency. You allowed it.

If you're in the US just check the Constitution. The Freedom of Religion is in the Bill of Rights.

It is a special type of legalized fraud known as "religion" ;)

Depends on what country you are in. In the UK it is being determined in court now.

The fraud comes in when they demand payment in order to assure the overseers that they, the unwashed, are worthy.

RB

But if people sell you something by lying, it is fraud, right?
If you were lied to about TSCC and then gave them 10% of your money isn't it considered fraud?

For a discussion of fraud law in the U.S., see "Can I sue the church?" at http://packham.n4m.org/lawsuit.htm

NOT a "political" statement!

It seems that -any-

"organized" church (has doctrines or bylaws for membership, leaders whose livings are supported by tax-exempt donations (dues), owns communal property),

and

which spends money to influence laws that will affect the lives and freedoms of non-members,

knowingly and willfully breaches the constitutional separation of church and state (make no law regarding clause), in their (successful) attempts to influence the laws of the land,

thereby not conducting itself as a "protected" religious institution, but acting for all intents and purposes as a PAC,

and are therefore subject to common laws, having freely removed of itself the "religious exemption."

------

The US was founded in flight of religious persecution, from a time and place where people of differing religious beliefs were being imposed upon (controlled, tortured and killed) by others, who laid claim to "the one true church."

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

A common misunderstanding (except at RfM, of course) is that the religious freedom clause is not there to protect the religious to do as they will, but to protect others from being forced to abide by particular sets of beliefs of various religious sects. When organized religions step into law, they violate the freedom to privately practice as they will, and as such, should no longer be afforded the entitlements of religion; they are attempting to become government,and in many cases, have a long history of these violations.

Given these facts, having been imposed upon by laws instituted by government at the behest of religion, since birth, I claim, as can many others, that I was not "free" to "choose" to leave, that organized religion has corrupted, preverted and stolen the constitutional religious freedom guaranteed all citizens.

In leaving, and particularly in leaving the Mormon church, persecution of all manner occurs, up to and including against those who lose their spouse, children, families of origin, jobs, homes and even their lives. These are tangible things of value.

It is fraudulent that organized religion lay claim to "religious freedom" and "[free will] or agency," when they have spent so much money, time and effort to deny to all those very things.

We must insist that the Supreme Court do its job.

I think you may have a bit of misunderstanding on religious freedoms.

Churches are allowed to participate politically in any issues they believe impact their mission. They are prohibited from campaigning for or against individual candidates, however. This is why the Mormon Church and some evangelical churches legally and openly donated to California's Proposition 8.

Your claims to a denial of freedom based upon the political influence of churches is specious. As others have noted here, unless you were physically restrained or unlawfully imprisoned, when you reached adulthood, the front door of the church functions both as an entrance and an exit. You were free to leave whenever you choose. Your activity on this forum demonstrates your argument is unfounded, don't you think?

You are correct that the church can decimate your social construct as you pass through the exit process. That's always sad, but its not illegal. Severing relationships is often messy both in and out of a religious setting.

The Supreme Court is doing its job, but making sure we pass through life without pain is not part of their mission.

What about a child actor whose parents paid tithing on and with his earnings? Would he have a shot at getting the church to return the tithing or would the church's defense of "get it from your parents" work?

Yes its fraud bordering on extortion when salvation and temple enter into it not to mention tithing...milk before meat are the watch words imo...opinion being the operative word...if you have enough jingle you can appeal opinions till your broke..no lawyer in the world wont tell you how right you are till you cant pay his bill...religeon being as prevalent and emotional a topic as it is ...is really a hands off three monkeys subject...elections and all...contributions...bloc voting...mormons make a darn fine bloc of votes...no use upsetting any apple carts...if there were no concern of lawsuits i doubt wed have seen the essays scramble last year and the usual butt covering that goes with it...the sudden and vitriolic rejection of Toms case went far beyond opinion..the vexation seemed tantamount to either grease on a palm...or word from higher up...we will not allow our apple carts to be tipped..a tube a grease can have legal merit too...imo...private prisons for example

Take a look at your year end tithing report where it says:

"This statement contains a record of "voluntary" contributions....
The Church provided no goods or services in consideration, in whole or in part, for the contributions detailed below; but only intangible religious benefits"

That's why you can't sue them. Contributions will always be considered as voluntary and intangible religious benefits can't really be accurately quantified or even identified.