aznative wrote:I swear, on everything I hold dear, I just called the COB at 801-240-1000 and asked who I needed to speak to to begin the process to submit my membership resignation. The lady told me it was the Confidential Records department but all phone lines to that department are down right now, and asked if I could call back in an hour and maybe the lines will be working by then.
Maybe this is a result of the day's events or maybe this is their standard answer to anyone who is calling to resign. "Sorry, we don't take resignations."
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
aznative wrote:I swear, on everything I hold dear, I just called the COB at 801-240-1000 and asked who I needed to speak to to begin the process to submit my membership resignation. The lady told me it was the Confidential Records department but all phone lines to that department are down right now, and asked if I could call back in an hour and maybe the lines will be working by then.
Maybe this is a result of the day's events or maybe this is their standard answer to anyone who is calling to resign. "Sorry, we don't take resignations."
I sent a letter straight to them tell them that I resigned and instructing them to remove my name from the church. A week or so latter I got a form letter saying that it was a local matter and that my letter was forwarded to the Bishop. I waited a week or so and then contacted the Bishop. He was real nice and told me he was going to do his part that sunday. A few weeks later I got another from letter from the COB telling me that my name was removed from the roles and that my temple blessings were now null and void (gasp!).
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude
Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just god when he's drunk - Tom Waits
Interesting stuff from MADB - sounds like an English lawyer, perhaps a Mormon.
The 'matter for trial' statements (bolded below) are important. You cannot argue that a case ought not to be tried simply because you think you have an argument against the other side's case. If that is your only objection, the court will say 'well, so let's have a trial'.
We shall see next Thursday whether the judge says just that.
Several hours of preliminary arguments on the Tom Philips v. Thomas Monson fraud case today. The judge said he will not decide today whether the case can proceed to trial.
It was late in the day – Court usually finishes around 4p.m. so I’m not surprised. Probably also wants to write out his judgement to make sure its absolutely correct and may want to check on some of the legal points. Plus, I think I'd be pretty fed up after hearing these two at it for 6 hours!
Quote
Church lawyers argued that Philips has no standing to bring the case (an argument the judge threw out), that the lawsuit is a vexatious PR stunt, that the judge had abused due process by illicitly advising Philips on how to frame the case, that Monson didn't cause any fraud that may exist and therefore isn't responsible, that the Church frames its teachings as beliefs rather than fact and tithes are optional, that the court can't possibly decide matters of religious belief, and that a fraud judgment would contravene the Church's human rights/religious freedom.
Dismissing the “No standing” claim surprises me – it was something I thought might be a good ground for dismissal.
Vexatious – possible.
Abuse of process by advising Phillips – shows a lack of understanding of the role of impartiality expected by the Courts and the practice direction that the Courts are to assist unrepresented persons.
No fraud – matter for trial after evidence
Religious belief and breach of religious freedom – possible
Quote
Philips's lawyers replied that if someone says, "God is the almighty father," that's a statement of belief. If someone says, "this book is translated from this document," that's a statement of fact. Philips is asking the court to decide on the church's assertion of facts, which he says may be proved to be false. While courts can't decide on matters of correct doctrine, they can and do decide on crimes committed in the course of religious worship, such as use of cannabis by Rastafarians. The court in this case is being asked to rule on fraud, not doctrine. The lawyers said that Monson is an educated man and thus surely knows that the world isn't 6000 years old, that humanity isn't descended from Adam and Eve, that the Indians aren't descended from Israelites, and that the Book of Abraham wasn't translated from the papyri. He is lying for the Lord. Monson has a right to practice his religion, but not to smoke cannabis or to demand money under false pretenses.
No, he can’t demand money under false pretenses. Of course one cannot commit a crime under the cover of religious freedom and so fraud is possible – eg by saying you are collecting money for the church and then spending it all on yourself. But the Court is being asked to rule on doctrine here – all of the claims. The claims that religions make, even couched as facts are, for legal purposes, beliefs. Science v Religion – creationists would be in trouble on the above argument. All religion would be in trouble on the Adam and Eve one. I doubt that Phillips can prove any of these statements categorically false and a statement of fact and not belief. Hard to prove something wasn’t translated from a document when you don’t have the document! Then there is the non existent link to tithing and demands for money. But – matter for trial. None of this counters the defence’s argument other than that whether or not there is a fraud is an issue for trial.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I think it should be permissible for the MD&D board to hold their own trial of Tom Phillips. It is okay for the guilty verdict to be rendered before the trial begins, but the sentencing should wait till all the posts are written and the thread is closed.
moksha wrote:I think it should be permissible for the MD&D board to hold their own trial of Tom Phillips. It is okay for the guilty verdict to be rendered before the trial begins, but the sentencing should wait till all the posts are written and the thread is closed.
Sounds like the procedures followed in an LDS court of love.
No Mas Mentiras wrote:I am very interested in ordering a transcript of the proceedings as it seems there were several gaffes by the attorneys for the church.
No Mas Mentiras wrote:I am very interested in ordering a transcript of the proceedings as it seems there were several gaffes by the attorneys for the church.
UK courts don't usually do transcripts. I think.
You're right. There are reports, but they are not issued by the court itself.
And by no means all cases will be reported in detail, except in the higher courts. Some cases decided in the Westminster Magistrate's Court are however reported in outline, where important issues are involved. See the links on this page:
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
moksha wrote:I think it should be permissible for the MD&D board to hold their own trial of Tom Phillips. It is okay for the guilty verdict to be rendered before the trial begins, but the sentencing should wait till all the posts are written and the thread is closed.
Sounds like the procedures followed in an LDS court of love.
Yikes, in that case I should amend it:
I think it should be permissible for the Mormon Discussions & Dialogue board to hold their own trial of Tom Phillips. It is okay for the guilty verdict to be rendered before the trial begins, but the sentencing should wait till all the posts are written and the thread is officially closed by the moderators and all opposing counsel is banned by a capricious vote of MD&D Moderators: Nemesis, Hathor, Banshee, Melkur, Jaq D'ripper and Sauron Jr.
I am learning from Peggy Fletcher Stack, to not state Disgruntled Lawyer Apostate Phillips' whole case for fraud, but rather to leave the membership with the feeling that this ill conceived vendetta based on imaginary charges will disperse with the wind.
moksha wrote:I am learning from Peggy Fletcher Stack, to not state Disgruntled Lawyer Apostate Phillips' whole case for fraud, but rather to leave the membership with the feeling that this ill conceived vendetta based on imaginary charges will disperse with the wind.
her relationship with the church could be described as a chainsmoker.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
