Morm prez ordered to court - financial fraud

[Luddly Neddite]

Mormon president ordered to appear in British court

... Two summonses direct Thomas S. Monson of Utah, the Church president, to attend a March 14 hearing in the Westminster Magistrates Court of London to answer accusations that key tenets of the LDS faith are untrue and have been used to secure financial contributions....

I'm shocked, I tell you.

Just SHOCKED!

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah totally shocking that the court allows a frivolous lawsuit. its not like that's never happened before.

 

[koshergrl]

Almost as shocking as lud's bigotry.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Ya know ... There's no need to be ashamed or deny that religions exist in order to separate the masses from their money. Its simply fact and they could not exist if they did not take your money.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm shocked that a cult leader has engaged in illegal behaviour!

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm shocked that a cult leader has engaged in illegal behaviour!

Im not shocked that you feel the need to lie about it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ya know ... There's no need to be ashamed or deny that religions exist in order to separate the masses from their money. Its simply fact and they could not exist if they did not take your money.

Except what you say is completely untrue.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Ya know ... There's no need to be ashamed or deny that religions exist in order to separate the masses from their money. Its simply fact and they could not exist if they did not take your money.

Except what you say is completely untrue.

And, if you didn't give them money, how would they pay for their tax-free churches?

Religions are organized for one reason and one reason only - money.

Or are you saying that you can't get into heaven if you don't belong to and go to and pay off an organized religion?

 

[Avatar4321]

Lud, repeating it again and again doesnt make it true

 

[jillian]

Yeah totally shocking that the court allows a frivolous lawsuit. its not like that's never happened before.

Other than your hope that the allegations are untrue, kindly set forth what makes this suit frivolous.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Lud, repeating it again and again doesnt make it true

So, its not true that religions depend on the tithing of their followers?

Where does their money come from?

This is your chance to educate me ... Or, put another way, stop dancing around and just answer the question.

Where does their money come from?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Omg u r right he must be guilty if they want him in court!!!!!!!!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Omg u r right he must be guilty if they want him in court!!!!!!!!

Who wrote that?

Please link to the post.

Thanks.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah totally shocking that the court allows a frivolous lawsuit. its not like that's never happened before.

Other than your hope that the allegations are untrue, kindly set forth what makes this suit frivolous.

1) Genuine beliefs are not fraudlent
2) The lack of any evidence asserted that these individuals know Monson.
3) The fact that no one profited of any donations. Nor were any donations encouraged to cause someone to lose money.
4) The fact that the people making the complaint benefited from the donations made
5) British law precludes challenges to religious belief in a secular court

Mormon president ordered to appear in British court

Legal scholars in England expressed bewilderment at the summonses, saying British law precludes challenges to theological beliefs in secular courts.

"I'm sitting here with an open mouth," said Neil Addison, a former crown prosecutor and author on religious freedom. "I think the British courts will recoil in horror. This is just using the law to make a show, an anti-Mormon point. And I'm frankly shocked that a magistrate has issued it."

6) No one would theologically argue that anyone should pay tithes because of the issues cited in the complaint.

Harvey Kass, a British solicitor, referred to the summons as "bizarre," adding, "I can't imagine how it got through the court process. It would be set aside within 10 seconds, in my opinion

It's a frivolous lawsuit.

Oh and number 7) Im a thinking human being.

 

[Avatar4321]

Lud, repeating it again and again doesnt make it true

So, its not true that religions depend on the tithing of their followers?

Where does their money come from?

This is your chance to educate me ... Or, put another way, stop dancing around and just answer the question.

Where does their money come from?

Trying to change the argument are we?

How they get money to run the organization is irrelevant to your argument that religions exist solely to get money. Religious organizations exist to create a community in which we can worship God together. The fact that we may need money to buy property, construct houses of worship, and power and heat buildings is completely ancillary to the purpose.

Of course, I am confident you already know this which is why you are trying to create this straw man.

 

[jillian]

Yeah totally shocking that the court allows a frivolous lawsuit. its not like that's never happened before.

Other than your hope that the allegations are untrue, kindly set forth what makes this suit frivolous.

1) Genuine beliefs are not fraudlent

No. But bilking people out of money is.

2) The lack of any evidence asserted that these individuals know Monson.

Evidence comes out DURING the trial, not before.

3) The fact that no one profited of any donations. Nor were any donations encouraged to cause someone to lose money.

Again, there has been no trial. You have no idea what occurred.

4) The fact that the people making the complaint benefited from the donations made

Again, you claimed the suit was frivolous. Often people complaining about each other are all a bit sketchy. Doesn't add up to frivolous.

5) British law precludes challenges to religious belief in a secular court

Mormon president ordered to appear in British court

They aren't challenging religious beliefs. They are challenging alleged financial misfeasance.

Legal scholars in England expressed bewilderment at the summonses, saying British law precludes challenges to theological beliefs in secular courts.

"I'm sitting here with an open mouth," said Neil Addison, a former crown prosecutor and author on religious freedom. "I think the British courts will recoil in horror. This is just using the law to make a show, an anti-Mormon point. And I'm frankly shocked that a magistrate has issued it."

6) No one would theologically argue that anyone should pay tithes because of the issues cited in the complaint.

Harvey Kass, a British solicitor, referred to the summons as "bizarre," adding, "I can't imagine how it got through the court process. It would be set aside within 10 seconds, in my opinion

It's a frivolous lawsuit.

They might not prevail. But your wishful thinking doesn't make it frivolous.

Oh and number 7) Im a thinking human being.

Then, as a thinking human being, you should understand that your own biases don't make it a frivolous case. And you should further understand that the allegations should be assessed in a court of law and not based on your personal religious beliefs.

A term like "frivolous case" has a particular legal meaning. That meaning is NOT that the case offends you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Other than your hope that the allegations are untrue, kindly set forth what makes this suit frivolous.

1) Genuine beliefs are not fraudlent

No. But bilking people out of money is.



Evidence comes out DURING the trial, not before.



Again, there has been no trial. You have no idea what occurred.



Again, you claimed the suit was frivolous. Often people complaining about each other are all a bit sketchy. Doesn't add up to frivolous.



They aren't challenging religious beliefs. They are challenging alleged financial misfeasance.



6) No one would theologically argue that anyone should pay tithes because of the issues cited in the complaint.

It's a frivolous lawsuit.

They might not prevail. But your wishful thinking doesn't make it frivolous.

Oh and number 7) Im a thinking human being.

Then, as a thinking human being, you should understand that your own biases don't make it a frivolous case. And you should further understand that the allegations should be assessed in a court of law and not based on your personal religious beliefs.

A term like "frivolous case" has a particular legal meaning. That meaning is NOT that the case offends you.

Lets sue Jews for something, shall we? Then of course the opinion you express would be different of course.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Tithe is not fraud. It is in the Bible as well. It is a religious question that has nothing to do with secular courts. No one forces anyone to pay tithe, it is completely voluntary and there are no means created maintained or executed to force anyone to pay tithe.

Claiming other wise is in fact frivolous and ignorant.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Lud, repeating it again and again doesnt make it true

So, its not true that religions depend on the tithing of their followers?

Where does their money come from?

This is your chance to educate me ... Or, put another way, stop dancing around and just answer the question.

Where does their money come from?

Trying to change the argument are we?

How they get money to run the organization is irrelevant to your argument that religions exist solely to get money. Religious organizations exist to create a community in which we can worship God together. The fact that we may need money to buy property, construct houses of worship, and power and heat buildings is completely ancillary to the purpose.

Of course, I am confident you already know this which is why you are trying to create this straw man.

Your reasoning is quite circular: Religions exist in order to have a place to have a religion.

And, none of what you wrote changes the fact that without money from followers, there would be no physical plant.

I don't get why some of you are in such denial about that. Or why you feel you must lie about something so utterly obvious.

Oh wait - I forgot you're morm and you learn "lying for the lord" starting at a very early age.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, its not true that religions depend on the tithing of their followers?

Where does their money come from?

This is your chance to educate me ... Or, put another way, stop dancing around and just answer the question.

Where does their money come from?

Trying to change the argument are we?

How they get money to run the organization is irrelevant to your argument that religions exist solely to get money. Religious organizations exist to create a community in which we can worship God together. The fact that we may need money to buy property, construct houses of worship, and power and heat buildings is completely ancillary to the purpose.

Of course, I am confident you already know this which is why you are trying to create this straw man.

Your reasoning is quite circular: Religions exist in order to have a place to have a religion.

And, none of what you wrote changes the fact that without money from followers, there would be no physical plant.

I don't get why some of you are in such denial about that. Or why you feel you must lie about something so utterly obvious.

Oh wait - I forgot you're morm and you learn "lying for the lord" starting at a very early age.

Well except that tithing is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. No one is forced to pay, no one is badgered to pay, no one is compelled in any sort of way to pay a tithe except from their support and belief in the Church. There are no Church agencies designed maintained or supported that compel members to tithe, no strong arm tactics by anyone. In fact the entire process is between you and your Bishop.

You are encouraged to tithe as it is a tenant of the Church. But then tithe is also found in the Bible and other churches ask for it as well.