Fraud requires a KNOWING misrepresentation of fact for the purpose of gain. Tom's case must be based on more than a "mis-belief". And it must have a unique element that puts it apart from prior cases. There are things that the General Authorities KNOW are not true. In addition to the claims now presented, Tom should consider adding the argument below. It comes from an earlier post.

...........

At every General Conference the General Authorities raise their hands in confirmation that they are "Prophets, Seers and Revelators".

And this is done in a church that has, as its fundamental assertion, the doctrine of "Continuous", and "direct revelation" from God having the same keys and powers of its founder Joseph Smith -- who himself regularly claimed to literally see and talk with God.

That is the fundamental claim and justification for Mormonism - that God is literally directing the church through factual contact with the leadership.

That is also the assumption of devout members.

Is it out of place then to demand that these leaders swear under oath that this is actually happening? Very well. What color are God's eyes? Does He speak new or old English? When was the last time you had a conversation with God? When was the last time any other general Authority literally had a conversation with God?

If there is no affirmative answer, then there has been "false representation for gain". Billions worth of gain!

Is that inconsistent with the British Law?

Tom, I think that issue should be included in the case filing.


EDIT by YUP:

This assertion of "literal contact" with God greatly separates Mormonism from almost all other religions. This makes the case "unique" and sets it apart from other defenses and arguments made in prior cases.

It also keeps other religions from becoming friends of the court in that they do not share this quality with Mormonism.

Mormonism's greatest strength may end up being its greatest weakness.

Didn't Gordon Hinckley teach us that being a prophet is different from being sustained as a prophet?

It appears that this would fall under an ideological belief - rather than a provably (by a third party) and knowingly deceiptful statement.

To say that "yes your honor, I am in continuous and direct communication with the heavens everyday" could certainly mean he prays daily and feels as though he is being guided by some higher power.

It is an entirely different circumstance to purport a claim that, for example, the BoA was translated from the papyrus and that it was penned by the hand of Abraham, when those things can be proven falsehoods.

Just sayin'

No, but DandC says it is by common consent.
And the corporation structure (new since d and c) give full power to the director.

The "all in favor, any opposed" could be taken like a company AGM, where people who think they are members, think they are voting, and, as per d and c, can De- vote anyone who is being put up for rd election..to be sustained.

When I learned it was only symbolic, my vote wasn't being recognized, couldn't make a difference, and tsm couldn't be removed...by common consent...well, that wasn't what I was told and believed when I joined when the missionaries knocked on my door.

I think that has legs.

If only I could see the records.

. . . when asserting that the Mormon Church's intent of making financial gain was operating on the premise of it making false representations of its "truth" statements that the Mormon Church (and Monson) knew or might have known were false.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2014 05:28PM by steve benson.

The proof does not require a direct admission. Certainly, TSM can be asked about DNA and how it proves the Indians ain't Lamanites. As for the BoA, he has had access to the documents, etc. How will he explain away what he surely knows. Only by claiming Alzheimer's can he get off.

This is what I have posed at the Trib to try and explain it in simple terms

his case may be far simpler and potentially more cut and dry than it seems. It is not about Adam and Eve, it is about did the church lie about facts they knew and acknowledge they know were true. It is details.

It is a charge of theft by deception which is fraud hence the fraud investigation. Alleged specific claims that the church made that the story of the rock and the hat, stories about the Book of Abraham, Smiths 33 wives, 14 married to other men etc... were not true and were anti Mormon lies. They were true and the church knew it but aledgedly either lied and or hid it. This deception cause people to not be able to make an informed decision about joining and paying tithing and these intentional acts of deception caused the members to not have informed consent and thus the church is guilty of fraud. The church now acknowledges these items as being true.

This alleged deception cause people to not be able to make an informed decision about joining and paying tithing and these intentional acts of deception caused the members to not have informed consent and thus the church is guilty of fraud. They paid "voluntary" so they could be a full member but they were enticed to join or stay under what they alleged and the court will investigate as fraud.

Does this make sense? People say if I knew about the hat and the rock or that the Book of Abraham was not translated I would not have joined. I don't know what will come of this but if it results in more transparency and truthful responses from the church and missionaries I don't see how anyone can complain. I for one have been told that these things were lies which was false. The church now admits these items through the essays and through FAIR.