I talked to Kay Burningham over the weekend and confirmed the story and got some more insight into the case.

From what I can tell the case is well constructed by focusing on the specific history of the LDS church that the church has misrepresented and not on beliefs or 'truth' claims. It is the history specific to Mormonism and not churches in general. I know I myself would never have joined the church if I knew the real way things happened historically speaking and not the extremely sugar-coated version told by the church in my youth.

Comments made by church-employed historians regarding the essays seem to provide evidence that the church did misrepresent their history for many, many years and only started to become somewhat more honest about the history when the real historical issues, and the associated challenges to believing in the LDS church, came available to the masses by former Mormons.


From the Courthouse News:

SALT LAKE CITY (CN) — A federal lawsuit sure to get attention in Utah claims that the “Mormon Corporate Empire” has driven worshipers to existential crises, suicide, anxiety and depression by peddling a “scheme of lies” centered on the religion’s creation and its scriptures, a onetime member claims.

Laura Gaddy on Monday filed a scathing, 75-page class action against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Represented by Salt Lake City attorney Kay Burningham, Gaddy claims the church, which claimed 16 million members worldwide in 2018, twisted “the foundational history of Mormonism” in a “fraudulent scheme perpetrated for generations.”

“The material facts upon which Mormonism is based have been manipulated through intentional concealment, misrepresentation, distortion and or obfuscation by the [LDS] to contrive an inducement to faith in Mormonism’s core beliefs,” the complaint states.

More here: http://www.mormonthink.com/

Smart. Avoids the stuff that's impossible to prove or disprove. You can prove facts of history and misrepresentation of them. And you can prove that people relied on that and got hurt as a result. So it'll be interesting to see where this goes.

I got baptized when I was 15 my mom was a member my dad was not. The missionaries treated me like I was a convert and did the 6 missionary lessons with me. One lesson showed the golden plates but not the seer stone. I wonder what African converts know about the lds church history?

I taught the six discussions per a script that was provided to me by the church, when I was on my mission. I served (of all places) in the Utah, Salt Lake City North mission. I plan to contact Key Burningham's office next week and offer to testify. At the time, I didn't know I was mis-representing the truth. I went by the script and a flip chart with pictures that were made-up by the church.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2019 10:22PM by azsteve.

Hey AZSTEVE!

That puts us both about on our missions circa 70's huh?

& of course You mean our beloved black-binder flip-chart that showed Joseph poring over the "Golden Plates" with feather-quill pen in hand by candlelight / lamplight???

Yep I still got mine somewhere in storage...hang onto it Bro as it might actually NOW become a collector's item!!!

Or so it seems to me...

Unfortunately, I tossed it out a long time ago. But I have a good memory. My mission was between 1982 and 1984.

Who is Laura Gaddy and how much will it cost her and her supporters to run this case?

oldpobot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who is Laura Gaddy and how much will it cost her
> and her supporters to run this case?


I believe Laura Gaddy is someone that approached Kay and told her she never knew about any of the problems with the LDS church related to its history that the church covered up or hid from its members until she read the essays on its website last year.

If enough people join the suit (go to website) then this may be able to be turned into a class-action suit.

It is expensive, so donations are encouraged.

Issue: Have prominent leaders of the church ever urged that facts be intentionally omitted or otherwise intentionally manipulated in order to promote faith (i.e. sell the church), without disclosing to unsuspecting investigators and members that such tactics are being employed to prevent them from having access to factual information that casts the church and its history in an unfavorable light?

Come listen to the words of Boyd K. Packer, an Apostle (one of the highest ranking positions of church leadership):

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect?lang=eng


"Some things that are true are not very useful."

"The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment."

"Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning."

"What is true with these two subjects is, if anything, doubly true in the field of religion. The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy."

"It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it. Be careful that you build faith rather than destroy it."

"Can you imagine that attorney, under contract to protect the company, having fixed in his mind that he must not really take sides, that he must be impartial?" [The implication is that church leaders and historians are taking the side of the institution against ordinary members and investigators who simply want access to a full, accurate and unredacted history.]

"I think you can see the point I am making. Those of you who are employed by the Church have a special responsibility to build faith, not destroy it. If you do not do that, but in fact accommodate the enemy, who is the destroyer of faith, you become in that sense a traitor to the cause you have made covenants to protect." [The implication is that the act of providing a full and accurate history, without manipulative redactions and falsehoods is somehow helping the "enemy".]

"milk before meat"

Although TSSC doesn't meet all criteria for a cult, the esoteric gap is one.

When there's a sizeable gap between what a new recruit is told and what someone knows who's advanced in the group, and that gap is deliberately maintained, that's the esoteric gap. Short form: you're not told upfront what the group is about.

I went through the temple and took those God-forsaken throat-slashing covenants and have no qualms about telling the whole world everything I know about the mormon church without holding anything back. They weren't honest with me. They weren't who they claimed they were. It's time to take them down as soon as possible. The way to do it is to just tell the courts the truth and stay away from religious beliefs when doing it.

Hey,I am one of the converts (read that:suckers) that you 70s era missionaries brought into this cult. I believed all the stuff in your 6 discussions, those archaic flip charts, those boring filmstrips, and that shiny gold paperback book you'all have me. I have no idea how much all that cost me in tithing payments alone, not to mention countless hours preparing to teach classes or other church oriented "busywork". I don't fault you mishies- - you only taught me what you were taught. But I was hurt for danged near 50 years until the internet helped me learn the truth. love the idea of a lawsuit. Where do I sign up?

I believe Kay Burningham's lawsuit aginst the LDS Church has merit

Information about the lawsuit agaist the LDS Church can be found here:

https://clients.kayburningham.com/?q=contact&r=class

The freakin golden plates nonsense was always the central story of moism. It never made logical sense to anyone who spent at least 2 minutes thinking about it. But there it was. And there’s so many other fabrications and lies. I love that there’s a lawsuit. Time to expose the lies and liars.

So at the very least, churchco will spend a lot of money on lawyers and pr. Good. Maybe the grumpy old men will leave COJCOLDS bankrupt. Maybe publicity about this suit will prevent others from converting. I only see potential upsides.

1) Damages -- harm inflicted, and
2) Damages -- compensation sought

It's one thing to state somebody has made an outrageous, fraudulent claim, e.g. "I'm a space alien!" It's another to claim and prove that the whacko's claim has harmed me, and that I am entitled to compensation.

The defense that the church will (have to) use is that ghawd made them do it.

So they will then join in the suit and everyone will sue ghawd. They can serve by publication, cuz he sees everything! And when they get a verdict against him, they can foreclose on all his property!

“And when they get a verdict against him, they can foreclose on all his property!”

How do I get in on the Kolob fire sale?

The suit appears well crafted to avoid making beliefs an issue.

Instead it takes aim at systematic misrepresentation of fact.

That's harder to defend.

How do we join the lawsuit and is that an option?

What do we know about the blackout? Is it self-imposed by a media establishment that supports Mormonism and/or freedom of religion? Or was it issued by a court order to prevent media interference in the justice process?

This lawsuit will be thrown out.

If you go to Kay's website, you'll see that one of the people that work with/for Kay (on her team), has a last name of Romney. I wonder how many disaffected people from mormon royalty families are defecting from the mormon church. It seems unlikely that the guy would affiliate so closely with her if he fundamentally disapproved of what she is doing in this case and didn"t want to be involved in supporting it. Either that or he is really good at keeping his job separate from his religion, or has/had no affiliation with Marion G nor Mitt.

That guy (the one you are referring to) is this guy.

https://www.parkromney.com/?q=ParkRomney

On Kay Burningham's site:

https://www.kayburningham.com/about-park-romney

It seems pretty clear he isn't sucking down his pro-LDS feelings to work with her! (a smile)

Need to amend allegation Smith was murdered in Missouri.

I’m impressed. There was a guy who tried it a number of years ago. He made the mistake of including religious claims common to all the abrahamic religions. His case was dismissed. Good smart fellow. He used to post on here. This has a better chance.

Right. This one focuses only on misrepresentation of secular historical facts as an inducement to faith.

See discussion here:

https://mormonfraud.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-gaddy-lawsuit-against-mormonchurch.html

The Tom Phillips lawsuit may have helped this particular suit. If in fact Tom spurred the church to release the essays, and if Kay is relying on the essays at all to prove prior statements were false, then Tom may have paved the way.

I was 15 years old, being taught by the missionaries. I had all of these adults telling me how fortunate I was to be discovering the truth at such a young age.

I thought the Joseph Smith story was weird and thought the missionaries to be a little gullible. But I got to the point where I thought that all of these adults wouldn't lie to me. They're adults. They must know.

I wish I'd listened to my first instincts and impressions.

First impressions and instincts are SO important. A couple of years prior to being an investigator I went to the mormon church and I said: “what a load of f***** crazy s***”
Um, yeah. Exactly. Should have stuck with that instead of being shamed into being “respectful” and “tolerant” and “open minded”.

I hope this lawsuit is successful.

Someone PLEASE let Mr. Phillips (sp?) know about the proposed class-action lawsuit. He may be able to help it go forward. I'm speaking of the Mr. Phillips (sp) who filed a lawsuit against the LDS Church in England several years ago.

ICEMAN

ICEMAN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone PLEASE let Mr. Phillips (sp?) know about
> the proposed class-action lawsuit. He may be able
> to help it go forward. I'm speaking of the Mr.
> Phillips (sp) who filed a lawsuit against the LDS
> Church in England several years ago.
>
> ICEMAN

He might have actually won his case if he hadn't been shooting his mouth off all over the internet. This simply gave the Church plenty of opportunity to squash his lawsuit with their army of lawyers before it went very far.

He handled things very poorly for a man of his age and experience, but at least he did get the ball rolling on the essays which vindicated what many of us had been saying about the church for years.

His public statements on the internet and elsewhere played no role in his defeat. The courts in the UK are almost as deferential to religion as they are, with the First Amendment, in the US. Anyone challenging a religion on the basis of false teachings in those countries is going to have a very difficult time--and probably lose.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2019 03:26PM by Lot's Wife.

His shooting his mouth off all over the internet (it was supposed to be an October surprise after all) was merely symptomatic of the incompetence in which he and his attorneys handled the case.

The religious fraud claims were of course,ill-advised, but there were other claims in the suit that might have proved successful if he had better attorneys and had been a better client.

The initial judge in the matter, Judge Elizabeth Roscoe, who had much experience overseeing cases involving fraud by large banks in the U.K., thought there was enough evidence to warrant a finding of probable cause that a crime had been committed by the LDS church.

This is why she allowed the case to move forward. She even issued a summons to have Monson appear in court.

Better attorneys and a more disciplined client may not have guaranteed a different outcome, but it would have at least given the case a fighting chance.

You realize, I presume, that there are three legal standards that apply in this case?

Probable cause is what gets you in the door; it comes nowhere near the standard necessary to prevail in court. And in a case that involves religious teachings, there are additional constitutional hurdles.

The fact that Roscoe allowed the case to proceed means almost nothing for the final judgment. You are acting as if the process that gets the police a search warrant or the plaintiff the right to discovery is sufficient for victory. All Roscoe decided was that the case was not so weak that it should be dismissed without a hearing.

Tom may have made mistakes; his legal team may have been deficient in some respect. You cannot, however, reach that conclusion based on the facts you have presented. If you have more information, by all means share it. But don't tell us that probable cause is the same standard that courts use to reach final judgments.

I never made that assertion. You inferred that on your own.

Probably cause gets the ball rolling on a case like this. But, the fact of the matter is that Tom and his attorneys were in way over their heads on this.

Hopefully, future litigants will learn from his mistakes.

You surely did make that assertion. Otherwise you wouldn’t have mentioned Roscoe’s decisions as relevant.

Regarding Tom’s errors, tell us what you have on mind. Provide some specifics or you are just emitting greenhouse gasses.

While he's getting the specifics for you . . .

can you give the specifics on where he made the assertion that "probable cause is the same standard that courts use to reach final judgments"?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2019 10:05PM by jay.

He's claiming that Roscoe's "probable cause" findings--those are Jordan's words--meant that Phillips might have prevailed at court if he and his attorneys were smarter. The only way that makes sense is if the standard Roscoe employed, again "probable cause," was relevant in the court case.

If Jordan understood the distinction, he would not have argued that Roscoe's decision was anything more than a routine dismissal of a summary judgment motion.

Can you prevail without probable cause?

I have already said no. But that is not the question.

It's my question.

You need probable cause. You and Your Uncle both note that is a necessary step. But Your Uncle never said it was the same standard used to reach final judgments. You put those words in his mouth.

If Your Uncle thought probable cause standard was the same standard that courts use to reach final judgments, then he wouldn't have stated that - after a finding of probable cause - a better client "would have at least given the case a fighting chance." He's noting probable cause is a step in the process. Not a meaningless step, but a necessary step. Not a final step, but a step.

You two have enough to disagree about but this isn't one of them. It's a meaningless observation but it seems you often explain to people why they're wrong and this little exchange caught my eye.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2019 01:49AM by jay.

That's fine, Jay, but Jordan said that Judge Roscoe's ruling indicated that with better attorneys and better personal conduct Phillips might have won. Legally, that makes no sense.

Roscoe's ruling was not on the facts. The question she had to ask at that point in the proceedings was simply if the facts are as the plaintiff alleges, is there an issue for a court to try? She said yes, if Phillips could prove his facts and his interpretation of the relevant law, there was an issue that deserved adjudication. But since that is not a judgment on the merits, her decision indicates nothing about what a trial court would decide.

If Jordan had understood the difference between the two standards, he would not have asserted that Roscoe's findings indicate the likely outcome of a factual hearing. The way you are interpreting his post, his final three paragraphs make no sense.

This would never have been successful in a UK court of law, regardless. The UK government has a thing about protecting religion; it’s like it has a special status that must not be criticised and different rules apply to it, even when this isn’t official, it’s the attitude here. As an example of this, charitable organisations are exempt from tax if they claim to be religious, regardless of what they stand for and whether the claim is truly legitimate.
The queen is head of state and simultaneously head of the Church of England. Bishops of the Church of England are entitled to positions in the House of Lords. Religion and state are not separate in the UK as they are in the US.
Tom Phillips was fighting a losing battle to begin with, and if someone thinks he was somehow at fault for losing, the specifics should be given to justify this argument (please).

Yes. Americans think their First Amendment is sui generis. It is not. It extends from UK constitutional history and precedent. Phillips couldn’t have won there or in the US. But he achieved a lot. He publicized Mormonism’s abuses and inspired others to follow suit.

To prevail in court, an action should be brought in a country without such deference to religion. But there is still value in suing the church for PR purposes. That was how the US civil rights movement began.

I didn’t see him indicate what he thought the likely outcome was. He said a better client and better attorneys would’ve given the case a fighting chance. A fighting chance is not a statement about the likely outcome.

And I think Tom Phillips was an incredible client and is an amazing person.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2019 01:29PM by jay.

* Probable Cause ( I have no idea how to edit my post. Sorry for the typo.)

There is someone else here who doesn’t know how to use the edit function. He too is given to bald assertions without evidence.

Have you emailed CZ yet, Jordan?