And then, we hope, they go after the rest. A British court is accusing the Mormons of 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.
The judge cites the belief that Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel, that the Book of Mormon was ever written on gold plates, yadda yadda yadda. Sure. I’ll be more impressed when a British court summons the head of the Anglican church to answer for their lies.
The Mormons, by the way, call the totally true allegations “bizarre” and Monson apparently has no plans to travel to London. The court order is kind of a futile gesture, so that seems reasonable — I’m more interested in the fact that “God’s prophet on Earth” has admitted that common Mormon beliefs are bizarre.
Well Mr Smith did start them off as they meant to go on. (Keep taking the golden tablets)
IANAL, certainly not a barrister, but I understand that “fraud” legally involve more than “lying.” Fraud is a lie that induces (or is intended to induce) someone to act to their injury, where “injury” is also a legal term of art.
I haven’t read about the court case, but it seems to me that lying as part of an inducement to contribute financially to the church would certainly fit that definition.
[Wanders off and reads up on the Fraud Act of 2006…]
Yep, misrepresenting facts or the law, in order to gain at another’s expense, constitutes fraud. There’s the caveat that it must be done “dishonestly.” But according to what I read, British courts have increasingly defined “honesty” in terms of factual correctness, not whether the actor subjectively believes what he’s saying. So it probably wouldn’t be a defense for the Great Prophet to show up and swear that he really, truly believes he’s the Great Prophet. He’ll have to prove that he is, in point of fact, the Great Prophet.
Nice.
I’m not quite sure how I feel about this… certainly, I’d like all religions to be asked for proof, and I wish they were held to a higher standard about fleecing their members. But to single out the Mormon church, particularly in the UK, kinda sounds like persecution of a religious minority.
How would we feel if a court in Alabama asked a Muslim to provide proof of Allah ascending to heaven in a fiery chariot? That’s kinda not cool…
I would be much happier if this was being asked of the Church of England. ;)
The difference between the Mormons and the Anglican Church has to do with historical veracity. Anglicans do not make any historical claims that can be verified: at this far remove, there is no way of telling whether or not there was a historical Jesus, whether he performed miracles, the manner of his death or the facts about his supposed reality. Mormons, on the other hand, place the foundation of their religion quite firmly within the area of verifiable fact, and they fall miserably short.
Some years ago, I was in upstate New York for my brother’s wedding. While out driving, we saw a sign directing visitors to Joseph Smith’s home in Palmyra. This was the former farm that held Hill Cumorah, where Smith supposedly had his Vision. We went out of curiosity and looked around, with the elderly couple serving as caretakers hovering nearby, ready to answer questions. I asked if this was actually the hill were Mormon watched the genocide of the Nephites at the hands of the Lamanites, and where he later hid the Golden Plates for Smith to find; they gave an enthusiastic, dare I say fervent, yes. Then I asked, How come there has been no archaeological dig on the site? According to Mormon chronology, the massacre happened in 385 CE. Scientists have dug up battlefields far more ancient: there are always coins, or bits of harnesses, or bones, or the remains of dropped weapons, or rubbish heaps, or cemeteries. If almost a quarter of a million people were slaughtered within sight of this hill, surely there would be SOMETHING, even after 16 centuries. So why is the church sponsoring digs in Mexico and Central America in their desperate search to back up its historical claims?
The couple turned very cold very suddenly, and demanded that we leave — NOW — or they would call the cops and have us thrown in jail for trespassing.
I get the impression that the LDS is a tad touchy when it comes to historicity.
Oh, and never mind that the actual papyri “translated” by Smith into the Book of Abraham were donated to the Smithsonian by Smith himself. The documents were later given back to the LDS church, who trumpeted far and wide that they would prove that Smith was a holy prophet, and set their leading Egyptologists to work translating them.
The papyri turned out to be from The Book of the Dead, detailing a magical/religious ritual that would be performed by Anubis on the deceased — a priest named Hor — which would restore his ba and allow him to breath in the afterlife. Not only was there no mention of Abraham, the papyri were dated almost a thousand years AFTER Abraham would have lived.
Never mind the fact that Native Americans (Lamanites, according to Mormon myth) have no genetic ties whatsoever to the Levant. Nor that there has never been any recording or record of the “Reformed Egyptian” that the Nephites supposedly spoke. Nor is there any evidence that metalcraft ever developed in North America before the coming of the Europeans. And never mind the fact that horses became extinct in the western hemisphere long before humans arrived. And never mind the fact that there is absolutely no trace of cows in the west until they were brought by Europeans.
One can easily prove that, insofar as it claims to be historically accurate, the LDS is pure and deliberate fraud.
Seconded.
Frankly, that sounds like they knew they were lying.
It’s actually not that interesting that he called Mormonism bizarre. In my experience, missionaries will admit to it and sometimes regular Mormons are ashamed of their teachings enough to not want to discuss them. Also, the church blatantly hides teachings that used to be normal doctrine. Like Adam-god.
Mormons are in the vast minority and hold many unique views and they pretty much all are aware that they are fat from the mainstream.
No, around the same time.
Details, please! :-)
Complete with the threat of arrest for the titular head of the church, the Queen, if she doesn’t show up!
Actually, if I was an attorney defending the LDS, that’s pretty much the line I’d take.
@ David Marjanovic #9
“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken–HE is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.”
Prophet Brigham Young, April 9, 1852
LIke that will ever happen.
1. The LDS church is a true gerontacracy. Monson is 86 and there are persistent rumors that he is showing age related cognitive problems.
2. Which wouldn’t be unusual. Most of the last 3 or 4 Mormon Popes eventually showed this.
One of the minor criticisms of the LDS church is their conversion script. Called milk before meat.
They try to lure people in by hiding the kookier aspects of the religion until later. Of which there are huge numbers, magic underwear, 10% tithing, authoritarian mind control culture, endless meetings that take your free time, us versus them tribalism, and clearly dubious history.
Retention rates of converts in the rest of the world are reported to be zero. They aren’t much better in the USA. People join the cult, find out it is pretty weird, and drop out.
This actually annoys me. Mormon beliefs are no more or less bizarre than the doctrine of any other religion out there, so by their logic any religious sect that demands tithing is guilty of fraud; but you can bet your left arsecheek that the judge has no intention of summoning the leader of any other religious sect.
The court cannot summon the head of the anglican church because they are her courts.
This one of the advantages the Americans have over us Brits: no established religion. Even if Britain takes the disestablishment path, the queen would get to keep the courts.
Mormonism has the problem that it was invented in the recent past, when literacy and history were well developed. History is not their friend. We even have records of Joseph Smith’s conviction for being a conperson in New England.
It’s likely that all the other religions would have the same problem if they were invented a century or two ago.
Still we do owe a whole lot to Joseph Smith and the Mormons, Scientology, and the Moonies. Thanks to them we know where religions come from. People just make them up as they go along.
@ sapperdon #11.
So wait, is Adam God or the Archangel Michael? If God has wives, what type of beings are they? Can trying to figure this out lead to brain damage? I can feel it hurting already…
Gregory in Seattle no. 5
Actually by the time the Europeans arrived the natives of Mexico were creating gold jewelry and working in bronze and copper. Columbus noted that some of the Natives of the Caribbean were wearing small items of gold jewelry. Among the natives of the lower 48 states the Moundbuilders were at least by the time the Europeans arrived at least cold working copper into artistically designed plates. Also several thousand years earlier their had been in parts of the USA the so-called “Copper culture” which among other things fashioned arrow heads from cold worked copper.
What there is no evidence for is that the Natives when the Europeans came or before were ever able to fashion iron or to make steel, despite the claims in the Book of Mormon.
But what would take the place of the daft claims of the Mormons? Stereotypically, Anglican clergy can believe just about anything. They do still all have to pledge their belief in The Thirty-Nine Articles, but you’d be hard-put to get enough logically or empirically testable meaning out of these to challenge them.
By Richard Packham:
(http://packham.n4m.org/historicity.htm) covers this topic.
(http://packham.n4m.org/tract.htm) covers the other fun stuff…
“Called milk before meat” -clearly Ron L. Hubbard r ipped of that part or Scientology would never have taken off.
Wasn’t there a Charles Bronson lookalike that tried a B-film career in the late seventies, screen name something like “Monson” ? -It would be fun if it was a distant relative, since both professions are based on “wilful suspension of disbelief”.
@Peptron #17
By the early doctrine, God (Ellohim) was both Adam and Archangel Michael.
God was once a man too, who did all the Mormon rites and rituals in his life (baptism, celestial marriage in a temple etc) to become a God. He had a God while he was a man, and that God had a God before him, and so on into an infinite regress.
So yes, God has at least one wife. Early Mormon doctrine said multiple wives, as polygamy was the thing at the time, and was declared to be a core principal of the Church.
“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned”
and
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy”
both said by Brigham Young, cited in the Journal of Discourses.
Later, the doctrine was changed to where Adam is simply the Archangel Michael, because the Mormons were ridiculed for the Adam-God belief.
This has come about because a former bishop / stake something or other in the LDS has brought an action for fraud against the LDS. It is possible that if a former member of some other religion brought a similar action that the magistrate in question might similarly issue a summons against whoever the leader of that religion is, unless of course judges from superior courts reject this action.
Here is the full skinny on the charges of Fraud being brought against Monson:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1166359
A few excerpts from a much longer and more detailed presentation, which we have courtesy of Steve Benson, grandson of deceased prophet, Ezra Taft Benson:
A bit more info regarding some of the details of financial fraud (these excerpts are also from Steve Benson’s presentation):
I’d just add that there’s been a lot of hullabaloo from the mormon side, reiterating that tithing is voluntary. The Church’s own records dispute this “voluntary” aspect. For example:
Still is.
You can’t become a god without a fleet of wives.
In Mormon mythology, there are near infinite numbers of gods, all of whom are just people who have been around a while and climbed the celestial promotion ladder.
We have a god who lives on Kolob. He has a fleet of goddess wives that keep pumping out spirit babies who cycle down to earth and become us. That is about 10-15 billion of us so far. In Mormon heaven, god spends a huge amount of his time fucking his brains out!!!
Which means we are all literal children of god and one of his goddess wives. These goddesses are so important…no one even knows their names.
The misogyny in Mormonism is bone deep. And you can tell the religion was made up by a horny, overaged adolescent.
There are a lot of things that make Mormons and nonMormons nervous.
1. Their finances are absolutely opaque. They take in an estimated $7 billion a year. No one knows where that money goes or what it does.
2. They also own huge amounts of real estate and many businesses. IIRC, they have ranches in Florida that total 2% of the whole state.
Know one knows much about these either.
3. It’s likely to be corrupt, maybe a little, maybe a lot. Whenever you have huge unaudited cash flows, there is going to be some “diversion”.
A cousin of mine back in Ye Olde Countrie has been doing some geneology/history, and came up with this tidbit: Yorkshire was hit by a round of Mormon missionizing in the mid-19th century, and my great^N-grandfather converted, set off for Utah…and was never heard from again. Fortunately for me, his grown son stayed behind, and presumably stuck to the family’s ancestral Methodism. Or Things Would Be Different.
Read more Jeeves and Wooster (the books are too historical documents!). Magistrates are always doing dotty things.
Don’t trust them, like Aunts, they are not gentlemen, and ill-disposed towards people innocently pinching a policeman’s helmet during the boat race.
Louis
Most Pharyngulites already know this, but just in case we have new readers: tithing to the mormon church is required if you want to get married in the mormon temple, or if, for example, your daughter wants to get married in the temple.
Mormon leaders say that marriages in the temple are the ones that last for eternity. Marriages not sanctified in the temple are “for time only.” Better pay your tithing.
If you are not a temple-worthy mormon, you cannot attend any marriages or other ceremonies held in the temple. If your mother is not temple-worthy, she can’t come to your wedding. Mother better pay her tithing.
If you are not temple-worthy and you die, then you will not attain the highest level in the Celestial Kingdom and you may not be reunited with your family/spouse in heaven. Better pay your tithing.
Mormons meet with their Bishops to make sure their tithing is up to date. God will not bless you if you don’t pay your tithing.
Impressive.
Bronze is news to me, and should have caused a bronze age that didn’t happen; do you know any details?
How can a British court claim jurisdiction over an American citizen living on American soil without some international investigation going on? Am I missing something obvious?
Yes. The Mormon church has extensive business interests in the UK and even a few members. The head of LDS inc. is however in SLC, Utah.
Still the issue of jurisdiction is dicey. I don’t see that the USA is going to let Monson be extradicted.
jamessweet writes:
First, you’re right. It certainly seems like persecution of a minority simply because they “ain’t from ’round here”. Agree or disagree with them that’s simply wrong. Next up it will be the beliefs, and not just the religious beliefs, of any group which falls out of favor. And since positive proof is notoriously difficult to assemble it’s a great way to bankrupt the powerless.
Second, you might want to change your analogy a bit. That would be “Jews” and “Elijah”, not “Muslims” and “Allah”. And the inhabitants of Crackerstan are happy to force everyone to believe that particular story. They just appropriate it like they did the rest of the Jews’ religious texts like the spiritual carpetbaggers they are :(
I’m not convinced that this is an honest reading of his statement. When a religious jerk misquotes or twists the concepts of atheism, we rightly roll our eyes and call the person either intellectually lazy or dishonest. Let’s not do the same.
If anyone wants the long version of things they can find a nice write up by Steve Benson at this link:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1166368
What I learned from skimming it: Apparently since 2006 religions have to prove that they are contributing to the public good to keep their status. They require it because money donated to churches is subsidized by the government. The mormon church has not done that and has raked in about 300 million dollars since 2006. They can’t demonstrate that they are contributing to the public good in any meaningful way because they spend less than 1% of tithes on charity. They really screwed themselves.
What is super infuriating is that the local news media isn’t covering it. I learned about it by reading the ex mormon board. They are covering the fact that the church filed a friend of the court brief in the gay marriage fight, like they do every single time a LGBT issue is in court. Snore!
David Marjanović no. 31.
It appears that the techniques of metal work spread from the Andean region to Mesoamerica by about 700 C.E. It appears that like the previous working of Gold and Copper bronze working came into Mexico from the Andean region apparently by c. 1200 C.E., In Mesoaamerica these techniques first came into use / were established in Western Mexico and spread from there. The techniques used were various and included the lost wax method and open mold casting. The metal workers created two types of bronze, copper / arsenic and copper / tin.
A various assortment of items were made like bells, tweezers, sewing needles, awls, fishhooks etc. Bronze tools have been found in excavations of Aztec homes. Basically the Mesoamericans were entering the Bronze Age when the Spanish came. See The Aztecs, Second Edition, Michael E. Smith, Blackwell pub., Oxford, 2003, pp. 88-90.
And copper artifacts were being traded from Meso-America at least as far away as what is now British Columbia.
See The Aztecs, Second Edition, Michael E. Smith, Blackwell pub., Oxford, 2003, pp. 88-90.
Anyone interested in Mesoamerican metallurgy might want to have a look at Dorothy Hosler’s list of publications, and especially her 1994 book:
http://dmse.mit.edu/faculty/profile/hosler
The local metalworkers methodically experimented with all kinds of tin bronzes and “arsenical coppers” between the 13th century and the arrival of the Spanish.
jamessweet, #3
Practically atheists.
Trebuchet, #10,
Not in the UK, as the Queen can’t take part in proceedings of her own court, and she can’t be arrested either. You could start proceedings in the US, I guess.
It needs to be pointed out that this is not persecution of a minority religion. Neither the Church of England nor the Government is involved.
Individuals have sworn that they are the victims of fraud by a religious organisation of which they are past members and they are seeking compensation. In some ways it is like a civil case.
I have no idea what happens next, when inevitably Monson doesn’t appear. There has to be more to their strategy than just embarrassing him and his UK hierarchy a little.
@JohnnieCanuck
Does persecution necessarily directly involve the government?
Setting aside the obvious point that Mormonism is unmitigated twaddle, surely it is a genuine good that one of its fundamental purposes is to separate the gullible from their money. By so doing they remove from them the temptations of greed because the elders of the cult shoulder the burden of sin by taking their wealth. Much like scientology really.
jamessweet,
Given the Equal Protection clause, this would be the perfect way to open the can of worms.
If a successful prosecution took place, there would be no legal way to deny a similar trial of the claims of Christianity.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/hollywelker/7575/why_was_lds_president_monson_charged_with_fraud/
Good coverage of the story, see link above.
In the comments, mormons are repeating that tithing is not required. Repeating that canard does not make it true. (See my previous comment on tithing @30.)
From the comments section below the article linked in #45:
Another reader of the article in Religious Dispatches (link in #45) answers the mormons who are repeating LDS propaganda that the leaders in the LDS Church don’t get rich off tithing, that it all goes to humanitarian aid and “building the Kingdom of God.” (As an aside, it has already been noted up-thread that the LDS church in the U.K. spends about 1% of its intake on charitable or public good causes, not enough to meet the requirement in the 2006 law.)
Thanks for the information on the Aztec bronze age!!!
This is from ex-mormon “erictheex,” who explains how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints operates as a business. The bottom line is that the top mormon leaders fleece the sheeple in more ways than one. Yes, they take the tithing, and then they take more.