How many have you heard about this lawsuit?
How do you feel about it?
Does it have merit?

?

I tried to post about this two weeks ago, but my post was taken down. Paul Adams is full of bitterness and fury towards the church and wants to sue and even criminalize it--he has a petition out for the FBI. I don't feel good about his chances, so I'm not signing anything.

He has loads of YouTube videos out talking about this, under 444age.

It sounds like its in a fomenting stage.

It's difficult to bring a lawsuit against a church for fraud, since any potential convert if legally competent, would be presumed to make their own informed decision as to whether they believe or not in a religion, including one based on historical falsehoods. Which most skeptics would argue they all are.

The one area for a class action that I think might hold water, is the baptisms for the dead. For those of us vehemently opposed to this practice, why should our convictions be disregarded when we die simply because we aren't around to object? That,IMO, violates the civil rights of us now in the living, knowing this grim reality. Unless the courts order the cult to cease and desist, like it did with the polygamy doctrine.

Here's a vid from Santa Monica re your OP. Doesn't sound like there's been any actual legal proceeding, just talk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRlj90rdjNE

Follow the $100M bribe to Arizona State to not hire the victim Quinn all the way back to the LDS Church for laundering the money. It a theory now, but it is worth investigating further because the facts are public and that much money has a traceable trail in the banking system. If the comments from Quinn are true, then why didn't he prosecute Arizona State? The theory: Quinn is in on scam. It is a theory now, but follow the money, and the theory will be proven true or false for sure.

By the way, the logic can be used for probable cause to a judge to get a warrant to audit the financial records. Therefore, it is worthwhile for the board to pick apart the assumptions with other valid facts that I may have not seen.

TSCC always obeys the golden rule. Those with the gold make the rules.

Under US laws he's not going to get anywhere.

You missed the point.
To prove FRAUD, you must show WILFUL misrepresentation of facts.

If there is a misrepresentation would a reasonable person have joined the Church if the TRUE facts were presented instead?
For me, I WOULD NEVER HAD joined the Church if I knew then what I know now.


Then a person must show damages. Although FRAUD is one of three conditions under which you can sue foe punitive damages in the US.


If you fall for a scam, do you not believe what the other party is telling you is true? Yes. Which is why you fell for the scam is it not?


The same argument applies against the Mormon Church. The case will fall down to whether there was WILFUL misrepresentation of facts (not beliefs) which resulted in financial gain to the CHURCH in any way which would not resulted if the TRUE facts were presented. And I do mean ALL of the facts. And not milk before meat approach of the Church.

Religion doesn't fall into the same category for fraud.

You are the one imbued with the logic to make a rational, informed decision. Most people accept religious belief on faith. Therefore there is no validation needed other than a conscious decision to join or abstain.

Because of constitutional protections, such cases don't pass the muster test. You can walk away. No one is forcing you to join or stay, even though it is a cult by most definitions. It is not illegal in the law to teach or practice its beliefs.

Baptisms for the dead, however, against the wishes of the living and the dead, could give a cause for a class action lawsuit because the living affected by the insidious practice have legal standing to bring it. That would send TSCC roiling as it affects a large portion of its busy work in the temples. That is a more viable lawsuit than one based merely on fraud in the US, against a church.

To prove the cult leaders are knowingly committing fraud is a stretch, given their propensity to be sincerely deluded themselves. Religious protections under the constitution are given a wide latitude.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2018 10:34PM by Amyjo.

One of the biggest innovations in Law was the recognition of and allowance for limitless human stupidity.

Even if they succeeded in getting a favorable ruling at the district court level, a case like that would inevitably be overturned at either the appeals court or Supreme Court level.

On the other hand, just for the sake of discussion, if ultimately validated by the Supreme Court, the precedent established by such a case would essentially make all religious organizations illegal. Every sermon delivered, every pamphlet distributed...would all have to have to be filled with legal disclaimers written by law firms.

Virtually all religious organizations take money from their members, based on promises given and without full disclosure of historical problems, contradictions and reversals that call into material doubt any basis for any authoritative pronouncements ever made by the religious organization in question. Some would be more vulnerable than others: JWs, Scientology, the Unification Church and so on, i.e. the organizations that demand the most from their members and are relatively new...therefore making it easier to collect relevant information.

You would almost have better luck filing a class-action lawsuit against the federal government and every state government in the United States (not to mention every government everywhere) for taking money from people (often at gunpoint), based on false premises, and without disclosing relevant facts about what corrupt bureaucrats actually do with the funds.

In other words, religions can legally lie with impunity.

Pretty much. Particularly, as long as the "separation of church and state" ideal remains in play.

In theocracies, on the other hand, only one religion can lie with impunity the one that runs the state or is run by the state (hard to tell the difference in most cases). The others are banned and lose all of their property.

The LDS Church isn't allowed to lie in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't mean that there is no religion that is allowed to lie with impunity in Saudi Arabia.

In atheistic, "ideologically pure" systems, no religions are allowed to lie with impunity, but political ideologues are...so long as it is in the service of the class that runs the state.

Again indicating the close similarity between religions on the one hand and political ideologies on the other.

But corporations representing a church can certainly be held legally liable for fraud and all those things.

In this discussion, I think we're talking mostly about religious lies. "If you do X, you will get blessing Y. God will bless you, if you pay tithing and get married in the temple." "Joseph Smith did not commit adultery."

These kinds of things are lies that they can get away with, at least as far as the legal system goes.

What if the Church sell's church-owned property in Florida to the ABC corporation and, in the contract, the Church represents that the land is free and clear of any problems that would constitute any violation of environmental laws and regulations. Later the other party, after buying the land, finds out that the Church has been dumping radioactive temple garments and medical waste on the land. Can the Church be sued for lying? Absolutely?

It's only in the realm of religious faith, interpretation and such where the church would be exempt from legal liability. Everyday, people document the Church's religious lies here, but there are still millions of members of the Church that will "testify" in its favor and claim that they aren't lies...just "misunderstandings" at the worst.

TBH, I wouldn't even want the government wasting taxpayer money trying to sort out messes like that. I feel bad for people who persist in believing things that are obviously false. But I don't want the government or the courts becoming the decider of what people can and cannot believe.

This is all good stuff.

Where the church is vulnerable is in its business practices, which I personally think are run pretty much by the book; and in its tolerance for, and concealment of, physical and sexual abuse. Many of the institutions that sustain extraordinary levels of abuse and coverup in Catholicism are present in the LDS church, which implies a similar legal vulnerability.

That, I think, is where the action is.

But it’s running its religion as a business using religion as a shield for unethical practices. Sorry, but businesses are held to account. As much as Mormons (or anyone else) would want, you don’t get to play both sides. Are you a business, books closed, or a religion, books open? It’s that simple.

So I’m agreeing with you basically. Sam Young saw the writing on the wall. I don’t see how playing shoot the messenger will put the cat back in the bag.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 11:37PM by babyloncansuckit.

One can easily prove the LDS Church is lying about Solomon's temple, for there was not enough physical room to perform the ordinances, and therefore, it is a fraud. They need to take all of the references out of their literature because it is a provable lie based on factual evidence. The problem is Mormons not read the Bible to investigate what it says. Indeed, they are trained deliberately to not read the Bible but to read the Book of Mormon. That claim can be proven in court. We are supposed to have freedom of religion and not freedom to tell provable lies.

Petioning the FBi to investigate will not work as 25% of FBI agents are Mormons.

A man in the UK who was a former stake president tried to do somethng like this and it failed.

Sounds like another "exercise in futility" !

Religion gets a pass. Their Truth is spiritual, mystical, mythological, visionary. And, that, folks works. It has always worked.

I want in. I've been through hell.

Who do I contact to get in on this?

Go to YouTube and type: "444age". The videos of Paul Adams will pop up. For myself, I'm not getting involved in it.

Ok thanks.

I have actual proof from professionals such as a psychologist that the fraud damaged me without any doubt.

You still need to get past freedom of religion as embodied in the First Amendment. The odds of doing that are exiguous.

Anything is better than standing still in complacency and doing nothing. This Paul Adams is right.

Sam Young and Kate Kelly and John Dehlin and McKenna Denson and Tom Phillips are, in my opinion, the way forward.

Maybe.

All I ever heard since resigning is can't can't can't. Too big, too strong too, many lawyers, too much power, too much many. F#ck, nobody thinks they can do anything anymore.

People are doing a lot. The big rebels are doing a lot, and the boards are contributing.

Things are changing.

I hope so.

I signed a petition for him. It's better than doing nothing I feel.

No downside. . .

Don't think so.

Does he have enough money to out-lawyer LD$ Inc ?

See my discussion about the possibility of suing the church at my

FAQ: Can I Sue the Church?
http://packham.n4m.org/lawsuit.htm

My conclusion: not much chance. But consult your own lawyer.

What about attacking the LDS Church on physical facts and not belief that is documented above? Attack them on money and the fact that Solomon's temple did not have the physical room to do the ordinances. The water was for washing their hands and not baptisms of the dead. Therefore, it can be proven if the LDS temple is connected to the Solomon temple it is a scam to actually steal members from other Christian Churches, provable by facts in the LDS literature.

Claiming that a person must pay tithing to go to the temple is argued to be highly disriminatory? The government prosecutors love discrimination cases, especially if it is based on teaching the Law of Moses, when the Book of Mormons says the Law of Moses is done away, proving the idea of compulsory tithing is a scam placed on the Mormon people. Tithing should be voluntary to attend the temple. Same thing with the gays. The Book of Mormon says that the Law of Moses is done away, and yetthe members are psychological abused and damaged by the idea that is not the definition of tithing in the Bible. Is the Book of Mormon right? Or is he Bible right? How is a person to decide between the conflicting ideas? It can created insanity. Do they follow the Bible or the Book of Mormon? The religion needs to chose one or the other to prevent emotional damage. Throw away the Bible, and that is the end of their new converts.

See? The legal argument is made for the conflicting standards based on money or gender, and the argument has nothing to do with freedom of religion! The courts made the Mormons stop polygamy, and they can also force them to change based on the money or gender pressures, arguing the church creates emotional damage by making it a "rule" to pay tithing or to be straight to go to the temple. It is OK that an organization choose to be straight or gay or both, but it is psychologically damaging to create rules based on two books that contradict each other.

The proof is in here documented for 20 years. People cannot freely leave without suffering years and years of emotional pain. Why? Because the ideas in the Book of Mormon and the Bible contradict each other. The argument is the rules to go to the temple. The storyline is fraudulent and has nothing to do with Solomon's temple. Therefore, the argument of Joseph Smith as a fraud believed today is ineffective, but demonstrating the contradictory ideas that drive sincere believers crazy could work to change the policies of the LDS church about money and gender, perhaps even forcing them to pick the Book of Mormon or the Bible but not both.

Read Kay Burningham's book, "An American Fraud".

https://www.amazon.com/American-Fraud-Lawyers-against-Mormonism/dp/0615465897/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Again?

The only people he can sue are fellow fraud victims.

Maybe he will sue himself?

I think the best anyone can do to strike back at the church is to go as public as you can, any time the church has perpetrated an injustice. No one outside of the church will care about Joseph Smith having 38 wives and some of those wives being the wives of other living men. But they will care about children in the church being molested, and about church leaders covering that up. I think that if you're good enough about writing your story, people would care also to find out what your journey in the church was like, especially the dystopic parts. You'll have a lot more luck exposing the church's secrets than you will prosecuting it. Start a new life away from all of your church acquaintances and let everyone in that new life know how crazy the church and its leaders are.

My husband came up with a good thought on this subject: When you rent an apartment or condo, you pay a deposit of good faith. When you leave the apartment, providing you leave it in good condition, you get your deposit back. When you open a savings account, they ask for a deposit. When you close it, you get it back plus whatever savings you have left. Since the church is actually a business, shouldn't they have to abide by these policies also? In reality, tithing money is deposited into a large pool and from there, it's distributed to it's elite and they manipulate the money any way they want. Same thing with the banks; they are making a profit with your money and you don't know for certain how that money is being "distributed". I would certainly be satisfied with getting my tithing money back, minus the interest that would've been accrued through out the years!

For something like this to succeed you would have to prove that the leaders of LDS inc do not believe what they are preaching so that they can get financial gain. Have fun with that.

As lot's wife pointed out LDS inc is going to go down because they become lax with their business practices. It will have to be the US government going after evaded taxes. I see no other way.

And truthfully I mostly agree with the heavy burden of proof when it comes to religion. I'm not sure I want the courts passing rulings about the beliefs of people. To me the potential cost to my freedom is too great of a risk. From a macro point of view, if the courts start passing judgement on the intentions of people who believe but cannot prove their belief I think all of us would lose.

I do wish, however, that there could be an Open Books law for peoples' financial contributions to a church. If they know how their money is being spent, they can make better decisions about continuing to pay out.