Head of Mormon Church Summoned to Appear in Court in London

From today's Telegraph:

Head of Mormon church Thomas Monson summoned by British magistrates' court over Adam and Eve teaching

Thomas S Monson, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ordered to appear before British magistrate's court amid claims that the organisation's teaching amounts to 'fraud'

A British magistrate has issued an extraordinary summons to the worldwide leader of the Mormon church alleging that its teachings about mankind amount to fraud.

Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been ordered to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London next month to defend the church’s doctrines including beliefs about Adam and Eve and Native Americans.

A formal summons signed by District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe warns Mr Monson, who is recognised by Mormons as God’s prophet on Earth, that a warrant for his arrest could be issued if he fails to make the journey from Salt Lake City, Utah, for a hearing on March 14.

In one of the most unusual documents ever issued by a British court, it lists seven teachings of the church, including that Native Americans are descended from a family of ancient Israelites as possible evidence of fraud.

It also cites the belief that the Book of Mormon was translated from ancient gold plates revealed to the church’s founder Joseph Smith by angels and that Adam and Eve lived around 6,000 years ago.

The document suggests that asking members of the church to make contributions while promoting theological doctrines which “might be untrue or misleading” could be a breach of the Fraud Act 2006.
The Church dismissed the summons as containing “bizarre allegations” and signalled that Mr Monson has no plans to attend.
It was issued in response to a private prosecution attempt by Tom Phillips, a disaffected former Mormon who now runs MormonThink a website highly critical of the church.
Under little-used legal procedures, people who say they have evidence that someone has committed a crime can ask a magistrate to issue a summons requiring them to attend a court hearing.
The district judge would then decide whether or not to proceed with a case or dismiss it.
Similar procedures were used by Palestinian activist in 2009 to have an arrest warrant issued against the Israeli justice minister Tzipi Livni, leading to an international diplomatic incident.
Two virtually identical summonses were sent to Mr Monson naming Stephen Bloor, a former Mormon bishop, and Christopher Denis Ralph, another former convert, as victims of the alleged fraud.
It argues that by being persuaded to pay a tithe to the church on the basis of teachings which might not be true, the president could have committed fraud.
Among teachings it singles out as suspect are the assertion that the Book of Mormon was “translated from ancient gold plates by Joseph Smith [and] is the most correct book on Earth and is an ancient historical record” and that the Mormons’ Book of Abraham, was translated from Egyptian papyri by Joseph Smith.
Other beliefs cited include the assertion that “Native Americans are descended from an Israelite family which left Jerusalem in 600 BC” and that “all humans alive today are descended from just two people who lived approximately 6,000 years ago.”
The document then demands that Mr Monson appears in court number six at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Marylebone Road at 10am on March 14 or face arrest.
Malcolm Adcock, the church’s public affairs director for Europe, said: “The Church occasionally receives documents like this that seek to draw attention to an individual’s personal grievance or embarrass church leaders.
“These bizarre allegations fit into that category.”
But Mr Phillips said: “The head of the Mormon Church has been summoned to a court to answer allegations of fraud – I don’t think a judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court would sign off on ‘bizarre allegations’ – I certainly hope they never would.
“This has been a very serious matter that has been looked at in extreme detail.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...-teaching.html

Bold going after a Church for fraud or anything. Respect. I wish my country had the balls to go after the Catholic Church. All the racial diversity in my city's politics but also all frightened Catholics that used to be afraid of Cardinal Mahony.

LA's Cardinal Mahoney covered up child sex abuse - YouTube

If the Church were passing off lies as truth and selling it to unsuspecting suckers, that might be fraud. But spreading falsehoods which they themselves believe to be true and accepting donations from suckers to continue to spread the word is probably not deliberate fraud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

If the Church were passing off lies as truth and selling it to unsuspecting suckers, that might be fraud. But spreading falsehoods which they themselves believe to be true and accepting donations from suckers to continue to spread the word is probably not deliberate fraud.

---

Nothing to do with The Bible but The Catholic Church does give you the belief your donations help the poor and needy. I'm not a lawyer, just an angry citizen.

They'll allow Cosa Nostra to marry as long as the envelope is heavy enough so...

Jesse Ventura: Catholic Church should be prosecuted using RICO laws - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

But spreading falsehoods which they themselves believe to be true and accepting donations from suckers to continue to spread the word is probably not deliberate fraud.

---

That is true. For true fraud, need to know you're selling a false bill of goods. Somewhere there's a tort for negligent misrepresentation but I think that's only for sale of goods.

Also, maybe some strange carve-outs that prevent religious organizations from getting sued because of the fear that it would violate the free exercise clause. For instance, religious organizations are allowed to violate anti-discrimination laws because forcing them to comply would presumably prevent them from practicing their religion free from government interference. So very difficult to hale religious groups into court here.

With the exception of its recent vintage, I don't see how there's anything unique about Mormonism that should make it susceptible to a suit based on its religious tenets. As Dino said, maybe religious organizations actually could be sued if they say "we're earmarking this money for flood victims" and they instead give it to members of the clergy. But I can't imagine they can be sued based on proselytizing their system of beliefs, no matter how outlandish they may seem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

With the exception of its recent vintage, I don't see how there's anything unique about Mormonism that should make it susceptible to a suit based on its religious tenets. As Dino said, maybe religious organizations actually could be sued if they say "we're earmarking this money for flood victims" and they instead give it to members of the clergy. But I can't imagine they can be sued based on proselytizing their system of beliefs, no matter how outlandish they may seem.

---

I am not sure 'unique' is the word. This is an example of permissive legislation where an individual court can decide if it wants to issue summons based on a 'liberal' interpretation of the law. We have a more permissive law on libel in the UK which is why there are more cases here than there are in the USA and why some have sought to pursue a libel action here rather than in the USA -there I believe it must be proven that the libel was malicious, whereas here it only needs to be proven true.

I think the weakness in this case that Trish and Broncofan have identified, is also made worse by the fact that members of the Church, as far as I know, are not compelled to make financial contributions or where membership of the church is dependent on having paid a fee, rather in the way that, as an example, membership of the Labour Party requires the payment of an annual fee. It is not as if you hand over $10 and then find that the founding beliefs are phoney, and can't get the money back.

My argument against Scientology as a religion is based precisely on the view that to join it means becoming locked into a process of 'enlightenment' but that every stage of the process must be paid for and without paying a fee, you cannot become 'clear' -whereas religion in my view is and ought always to be free.

This is a case brought by a disaffected Mormon who wants to expose what he sees as weaknesses in Mormon beliefs in a case I don't think he can win. The criminal element only comes in if Mr Morson defies the Court and refuses to appear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dino Velvet

Nothing to do with The Bible but The Catholic Church does give you the belief your donations help the poor and needy. I'm not a lawyer, just an angry citizen.

They'll allow Cosa Nostra to marry as long as the envelope is heavy enough so...

---

At the risk of diverting the thread, this report by the UN on institutionally condoned child abuse in the catholic church is a rather momentous document, although the authors have given the church an escape route by including other issues.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26044852

I'm no fan of religion; nevertheless, I find it disturbing anytime the law is used to question a personal or religious belief system. Personally, I think he should write "Go Fuck Yourself" on the summons and mail it back.

Yet, the law should be invoked to prevent pregnant women from aborting the tiny souls that have attached themselves to their fertilized eggs.

More seriously, it should perhaps be invoked to protect children from the miseducation they receive when home schooled by pious, anti-science parents. In the U.S. neither home schooling nor private schooling is subject to the mandates, regulation and testing required of public schools. The result is children who are even worse than the average American at mathematics, science, writing, geography and history.

Speaking of history, Joseph Smith really was a con man and his religion was a fraud. In 1844 there might have been a strong case for a suit. Instead he was lynched by an angry mob for burning down the town's newspaper.

When I see religious "leaders" like Pat Robertson performing miracles on TV and growing fat off the donations of the misled pious I always wonder, "Are they fooling themselves too, or are they just shrewd, cynical con artists through and through?"