I'm laughing hysterically today about the TBMs claiming that we're cursed with bad luck due to not paying tithes. Funniest are the posts about the parents who pay so that the son won't lose his job and the TBM who said God arranges credit card heists if you don't pay 10%. LOL

It isn't just TBMs who say such things. Just today I read someone who said that it's impssible to ever sue the morg for anything. Why? Because if such a thing could happen it would have already taken place. LOL

But my all time favorite RfM assertion was from someone who said that I was wrong and a bad person. Why? Because this poster got an email from an unnamed poster who made that claim. There you go! Logical and authoritave proof!

Any other irrefutable "logic" this year?

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It isn't just TBMs who say such things. Just
> today I read someone who said that it's impssible
> to ever sue the morg for anything. Why? Because
> if such a thing could happen it would have already
> taken place. LOL


Those were more or less my words, and it makes sense to me, baby: people must have been looking for ways to sue the morg for many years or decades, and apparently nobody ever saw an opportunity to start a case they could win.

I also said that this is only valid for the "big mormon markets" (USA and big countries in Europe and the Americas) where TSCC is familiar with the law. In small countries with few mormons, there is a better chance of finding some, perhaps quite unusual, law the morg may have broken.

And if someone disagrees, let them bring on arguments.

You claim that if something hasn't been done it must be impossible and you invite arguments to that assumption?

EVERYTHING in history is accomplished for the first time after not having been done up to that point.

The fact that something has yet to be done only means that it hasn't happened up to that point. It might never happen, but there is no proof that it will not.

Arguments in this case are nothing but batting at imaginary strawmen.

But it's usually done quite soon after it becomes possible. Ten years after the first planes were built, armies got the idea to launch them from ships. It didn't take a hundred years.

There have been exmos and nevermo antis for many decades. Do you think no-one ever exhausted the legal possibilities with lawyers? I'm quite sure people have discussed it, looked into it, and found they had no legal case.

Now before you turn this into a catfight (you were the one attacking, mocking and offending me, not the other way around), I'd like to hear other people's opinions.

I agree with zeno...If someone had a good case it would have flown by now...What would you so over??? Tithing you paid "voluntarily"??? Three Hour Meetings you had to suffer for. If they could be sued they would have by now....

As long as gay marriage has been illegal it was possible to bring a suit against the laws that prohibited it. Such lawsuits did not happen for a very long time. They did not happen until gay people found the courage and the will to instigate such suits.

So, it is possible for things to go a very long time before a suit is brought.

It depends on what you are sueing about. I agree that you are not going to prove the church took your tithing by fraud because the courts will assume that the leaders believe and it would be darned hard to prove otherwise.Beisdes, you had a choice. I think fraud charges or anything of the like has a snowball's chance in hell of being successful. Same for their waiting period on resignations or their insistance on being sure you wrote the letter.Those are reasonable especially since you are technically out with or without their permission once they have the letter. However, they could be vulnerable in other areas such as ccovering up sexual abuse and the like.

many times and for many different reasons.

(keywords: LDS church sued)

financial issues:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700054111/LDS-Church-being-sued-for-tithing-paid-by-suspected-fraudster.html

baptisms for the dead:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50169261-76/dastrup-church-dead-baptisms.html.csp

sexual abuse:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7122266

These are just the first three that came up. I've read many news stories about the LDS church being sued in the past for various reasons.

Ms. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> many times and for many different reasons.


But how often did they lose? They usually change doctrine when the law changes ;)

I don't think anyone has ever gotten their tithing back and dead dunking is still happening. I can sue you because I don't like the way you comb your hair, but I doubt I'll get very far.Anybody can sue anyone. It is winning that counts.

Here are some issues which might win with the right lawyers and situations.

1. Sexual abuse and the refusal of church authorities to report.

2. Domestic abuse when leaders destroy evidence and cover up.

3. Harassment. Locals and mishies who refuse to adhere to trespassing laws.

4. Possibly laws against extortion, forcing elderly non-functioning members to pay tithes and to sign over property in their wills.

5. Refusal to honor resignations, continuing to treat exmormons as members.

6. Missionaries being told to ignore visa and passport laws.

7. Abuse of missionaries, forcing them to live in squalor, not allowing them to eat a healthy diet, withholding normal needed dental and healthcare servies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2010 09:04AM by Cheryl.

The argument that if there was a good case, it woulda been made in the courts by now seems downright silly.

good hell, pedophile priests have been having sex with kids for hundreds of years. People had damn good cases to sue those b-tards. It took a helluva long time to sue. And even longer to sue successfully.

Lots of organizations are sued over and over. Sometimes it takes decades before there is a successful lawsuit. And sometimes there is an unusual twist to the argument somebody brings to the case.

Seriously, somebody thinks there never will be a successful suit against the LDS church? Hello, are you for real?

libby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The argument that if there was a good case, it
> woulda been made in the courts by now seems
> downright silly.
>
> good hell, pedophile priests have been having sex
> with kids for hundreds of years. People had damn
> good cases to sue those b-tards. It took a
> helluva long time to sue. And even longer to sue
> successfully.
>
> Lots of organizations are sued over and over.
> Sometimes it takes decades before there is a
> successful lawsuit. And sometimes there is an
> unusual twist to the argument somebody brings to
> the case.
>
> Seriously, somebody thinks there never will be a
> successful suit against the LDS church? Hello,
> are you for real?


I think there will be successful suits over abuse, but people are very unlikely to get tithing back or stop most church teachings and practices unless laws and the Constitution change.We have this pesky little thing called the First Amendment and the government is reluctant to interfere in church's beliefs unless they are clearly illegal. We aren't going to see hiuman sacrifice legalized any time soon, but baptism for the dead is a little more tricky and tithing is voluntary. You aren't getting it back unless someone held a gun at your head.

> Seriously, somebody thinks there never will be a
> successful suit against the LDS church? Hello,
> are you for real?

I never said never. Quote me, not Cheryl, thank you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2010 01:26PM by Zeno Lorea.

Yes, thanks I do know that the morg has been sued.

The point I find laughable in the extreme is that something can't happen if it hasn't yet occured. Or that it's proof that something is never happening unless it happens quickly. Or that airplanes have some relationship to lawsuits against the morg. Hilarious.

I never said " something can't happen if it hasn't yet occured". I said that when things like winning a lawsuit become possible, they are likely to happen sooner rather than later since there are millions of exmos and there will probably be someone willing to give it a try as soon as they sense the opportunity.

And the planes were just a metaphor, not a "relationship".

I would like to nominate this post of yours for dumbest words posted in 2010. So you've got the fight you were looking for. Are you happy now?

He settled out of court. LDS are not immune from legal action.

A lawyer in Idaho, Timothy D. Kosnoff sued LDS, Inc. on a child sex abuse case. This was also settled for $3M out of court.

The NAACP filed a federal lawsuit against LDS, Inc. in 1974 when Boy Scout troop leaders had to be a decon in the LDS church. Since black men and boys could not hold the priesthood, a black 12-13 year old scout could not become a troop leader. The racist policy was reversed by LDS, Inc. soon after.

People do sue LDS,Inc. The outcome may not get past the settlement phase, but there have been suit's brought against the cult.

Change can happen through legal action.

Feel free to correct my information if I am incorrect.

I agree with Cheryl.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2010 08:24AM by wings.

What Zeno Lorea said is basically that the chances of winning are not good. Here are the exact words:

"If there was a good chance to win a suit against the church, it would have been done before. The church has many legal counsellors, and it has investigated all the flaws."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,63596,63856#msg-63856

Maybe that first sentence wasn't very logical, but it's not even close to one of the dumbest things said all year. To say that it was, using your own words, is unfair and I think out of character for you.

I haven't been keeping track, and anything off the top of my head I'd hesitate for fear of payback.

... about lawsuit over racial segregation, were lawsuits after segregation was outlawed. That was my point: ever since 1890, the church does only do what is legal. If something they do becomes illegal, they'll stop doing it even if it requires a revelation at the eleventh hour.

Out of court settlements fall into the same category.

Timothy

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2010 12:18PM by Zeno Lorea.

Anti-bigamy laws were in effect long before Joe started screwing around on Emma. As a matter of fact, most states had laws that made cohabitation and sex outside marriage - even between two single adults - a crime.

The Edmunds-Tucker Act was also in place before BY started thumbing his nose at the fed. The Mormons didn't think twice about not obeying said laws until Utah was repeatedly denied satatehood on account of polygamy. It was the pressure, not the law, that caused Woodruff to "re-think" the cult's position.

Same thing with the ban on blacks getting the priesthood. Strong political and public pressure - such as schools refusing to play BYU in sports - caused Kimball to offer a half-hearted TKO on the ban.

The cult has had its a** kicked more than once. You're just pulling gnat s**t out of pepper.

And what laws changed that caused the cult to settle out of court?

Timothy

They made the mistake before that, but not since. The changed their position on blacks after society forced them to. They could have kept the priesthood from anyone they wanted (hey, they still don't give it to girls!) but they changed that when society changed.

So they always follow law or society, but laws usually follow society, and they can go against the majority of society as long as they don't break any laws. They are a peculiar people.

... I'm still not following.

Woodruff issued the manifesto in 1890, but the cult kept "making the mistake" well into the following century. As a matter of fact, polygamy is still on the books.

As far as the "law" goes, the cult can still exclude blacks from the priesthood as it does women. Just wouldn't be a wise thing to do as history clearly demonstrates.

In those cases, there's really nothing to sue over. Child abuse and other such atrocities have brought suits the cult quickly silenced via out of court settlements.

I chalk them all up in the "L" column.

Sorry, but suits have been brought against the cult so its not improbable or impossible by any stretch.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2010 01:19PM by Timothy.

That is not true. The Church does many things that could or would be considered illegal in normal circumstances. Worthiness interviews is one thing that comes to mind and covering up sexual abuse. Proving it and winning against a huge organization with endless financing is hard though.

Also saying that it hasn't been done quickly so it's highly unlikely or however it was phrased is kinda silly. Sometimes it only takes one to make a sweeping change. Suing the church for something like sexual abuse cover up might bring national attention to that problem as well as the worthiness interviews. That would be a win right there without winning or losing the case. It just takes one person in the right circumstances to shake everything up. You never know how or when it might happen.

rosyjenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is not true. The Church does many things that
> could or would be considered illegal in normal
> circumstances. Worthiness interviews is one thing
> that comes to mind and covering up sexual abuse.
> Proving it and winning against a huge organization
> with endless financing is hard though.
>


Well yes, I agree it is easy to win in theory, but it has not yet happened in practice. And I'm sure they have loopholes. I was never an active member after my 18th birthday, but don't people sign documents when they join as a convert or receive a TR that gives TSCC the right to ask them and their kids anything they want in interviews?

I don't know of any written contractual agreements. There are many undocumented verbal agreements, but those don't hold up in court.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2010 04:50PM by Timothy.

Please don't ever think TSCC will remove your name from anything !

Do not ask them to remove your name from their records. You are falling into their trap.

Just tell them you have resigned and insist on confirmation.