\n\tIt\u2019s not easy being British these days. Only a few years after narrowly avoiding compulsory ID cards, British citizens had a close call waiting to find out
\n\tif their religious freedom would fall victim to the Fraud Act 2006. The veracity of seven religious beliefs was called into question by Tom Phillips, a
\n\tdisaffected ex-Mormon, who lodged a criminal complaint against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). A formal summons, signed January 31,
\n\t2014, by district judge Elizabeth Roscoe, ordered Thomas S. Monson, president of the LDS, to appear before the Westminster Magistrates\u2019 Court in London on
\n\tMarch 14 to defend some of the church\u2019s doctrines.<\/p>\n
\n\tIn his private prosecution attempt (a rarely used legal procedure in England, whereby individuals who claim to have evidence of a crime can ask a
\n\tmagistrate to issue a summons for a court hearing), Phillips claimed that the LDS Church (and more particularly, Thomas Monson himself) could have
\n\tcommitted fraud by persuading members of the church to pay tithe based on teachings that might not be true. Among the church\u2019s many teachings, Phillips
\n\tsingled out seven:<\/p>\n
\n\tPhillips said he chose his claims based on two criteria: (1) that they be factual statements that could be tested in court, and (2) that they be reasonably \n\tJudgment was swift, as legal cases go. The case was dismissed on March 20, 2014. Westminster Magistrates\u2019 Court senior district judge Howard Riddle said in \n\tAnd yet . . . Tom Phillips has no intention of ceasing his pursuit of justice against the LDS Church. In a statement released following the judge\u2019s ruling, \n\tMake no mistake; this is clearly a shot across the bow. There may only be ripples now, but in time, with persistence, it could very well become a \n\tWhen Monson was first summoned by the British magistrate to defend the church\u2019s doctrines, most journalists, legal experts, and religious-freedom advocates \n\tTurns out, the very idea might be the shot that sinks the ship.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cDavid Twede, a spokesperson for MormonThink.com, said, \u2018One way of looking at things is that the Mormon Church dodged a bullet today. As soon as Tom and \n\tThey are a little of both, really, and therein could lie the reason he missed the mark. Phillips says the charges are of monetary fraud rather than \n\t\u201cPhillips challenges the biblical book of Genesis, alleging it is fraudulent to assert that \u2018all humans alive today are descended from just two people \n\tEngland\u2019s Fraud Act 2006, which Phillips attempted to use in his criminal complaint, contains some interesting language that could prove tricky to navigate \nIn section 2.2, a representation is deemed to be false if \u201cit is untrue or misleading,<\/em> and the person making it knows that it is,\tor might be<\/em>, untrue or misleading\u201d (italics supplied). Those \u201cor\u201ds are scandalously open to interpretation. When charged, churches might find it \n\t\u201cPrior to this phrasing in this law, most people would never think to bring a fraud case against a religion because it could be argued that the leaders \n\tAs an example, consider Phillips\u2019 claim that Adam and Eve were not the sole progenitors of the world\u2019s population. If he provides scientific evidence \n\tSo the chilling question is: Could it happen? Time will tell. Maybe next time, if Phillips has better aim or if he narrows his focus and chooses his claims It\u2019s not easy being British these days. Only a few years after narrowly avoiding compulsory ID cards, British citizens had a close call waiting to find out if their religious freedom would fall victim to the Fraud Act 2006. The veracity of seven religious beliefs was called into question by Tom Phillips, a disaffected ex-Mormon,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[301],"tags":[133],"class_list":["post-6271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-july-august-2014","tag-july-august-2014"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6271","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6271"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6271\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6271"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6271"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6271"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n\tcurrent (taught by the church post-Fraud Act 2006). What they are not, according to Phillips, is an attack on religious beliefs or doctrine. 'These are
\n\tmatters that can be disproved in court,' he said. \u2018This has nothing to do with religion, theology, or doctrine.\u2019\u201d2 Setting aside, for a moment, that some
\n\tof them most decidedly do<\/em> have to do with religion, we fast-forward to March 14, the date when Thomas Monson was ordered to appear in British
\n\tcourt to defend his denomination\u2019s religious beliefs. Instead, the Westminster Magistrate District Court heard arguments about the legitimacy of the
\n\talleged fraud relating to the Mormon teachings. Monson was represented by legal counsel and not required to attend.<\/p>\n
\n\this written ruling: \u201cTo convict, a jury would need to be sure that the religious teachings of the Mormon Church are untrue or misleading. That proposition
\n\tis at the heart of the case. No judge in a secular court in England and Wales would allow that issue to be put to a jury. It is nonjusticiable.\u201d3<\/p>\n
\n\tPhillips expressed disappointment, but also hope, asserting that although the ruling was a setback, he and his supporters intended to remain steadfast. He
\n\tsaid that he continues to believe that governments should \u201cenact and enforce laws that protect victims of fraud and corporate malfeasance, regardless of
\n\tthe wealth, influence, or apparent religious motives of the perpetrator.\u201d4<\/p>\n
\n\ttsunami-sized wave, which is why this case is important, even though it had a happy ending—this time—for advocates of religious freedom.<\/p>\n
\n\treporting on the summons were disbelieving at best, mortified at worst. The incredulity was so thick you could have spread it on toast. How could religious
\n\tbeliefs be tried in a court of law? The very idea was absurd.<\/p>\n
\n\tSmoking Canon<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n\this legal advisors analyze the judge\u2019s reasoning in detail, I\u2019m sure they will reevaluate their position and announce a course of action adapted as
\n\tcircumstances warrant. It\u2019s my understanding that they will continue to explore every possible avenue for redress, both in the United Kingdom and abroad.\u201d5
\n\tClearly, now that this issue has seen the light of day it will resurface, probably as soon as Phillips and his supporters have a chance to reassess their
\n\tstrengths and choose their ammunition more carefully. Let\u2019s face it, if they are able to get a court to seriously consider and rule on even one claim of
\n\tfraud, the dam would be breached, and every religious belief vulnerable. So the question is Are the claims Phillips made against the LDS religious or
\n\tmonetary in nature?<\/p>\n
\n\tAre They or Aren\u2019t They?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n\treligious beliefs. But some of his claims against the LDS are clearly religious, so which is it? For example, most Protestant denominations (and even
\n\tCatholics) could probably care less about the claim that the Book of Mormon was translated from ancient gold plates and is the most correct book on earth.
\n\tThey wouldn\u2019t agree with the latter half of the statement, but it wouldn\u2019t matter because they would summarily dismiss the claim out of hand. All
\n\tdenominations make claims that other denominations dispute; that\u2019s why there are<\/em> various denominations in the first place. However, Phillips\u2019
\n\tclaim that all the people of earth did not descend from only two people (Adam and Eve) is in direct opposition with every religious denomination that takes
\n\tthe Bible literally.<\/p>\n
\n\t(Adam and Eve) who lived approximately 6,000 years ago.\u2019 In a supplemental filing, Phillips argued, \u2018anthropology, history, and DNA studies prove this to
\n\tbe impossible.\u2019\u201d6 If a literal belief in Adam and Eve is fraudulent, which Bible-based belief is next? Pick one—there\u2019s a whole book full of them. And once
\n\tthe court rules against the literal truth of Adam and Eve they will all be up for grabs. It follows that upon conviction every Bible-based denomination
\n\twould be as guilty of fraud as LDS and could therefore be prosecuted. It\u2019s a slippery slope.<\/p>\n
\n\tin subsequent cases. The pertinent portion is found in section 2 and titled \u201cFraud by false representation.\u201d7 It states that a person is guilty of fraud
\nunder this section if they dishonestly make false representation<\/em>, or intend, by making the representation,\tto make a gain for himself or another,<\/em> or to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss\u201d (2.1; italics supplied). Most churches
\n\treceive \u201cgain\u201d in the form of tithes from members. If their members are giving those tithes because they believe, as a result of church teachings, that
\n\tthey must in order to procure some form of celestial favor, because it is their spiritual duty to do so, or because it is mandatory, as Phillips claims is
\n\tthe case with LDS who will not baptize you if you don\u2019t agree to pay a full tithe,8 then churches can be accused of making false representation for gain if
\n\ttheir teachings are proven to be untrue by legal standards.<\/p>\n
\n\tpossible to introduce enough uncertainty to prove their claims aren\u2019t outright false, but proving that they aren\u2019t misleading could be a great deal
\n\ttrickier. One commentator points out that the \u201cor might be\u201d phrase totally changes the burden of proof placed on the person accused of making a false
\nrepresentation. \u201cThe prosecutor doesn\u2019t have to prove the claims are false; they simply have to show that there is enough evidence to demonstrate that they\tmight be<\/em> false. Think about that.<\/p>\n
\n\tmaking the claims believed the claims to be true. Since belief is subjective, it cannot be a standard for conviction in a case of fraud. This law changes
\n\tthat whole landscape. Essentially, if the leader making the claim has been exposed to any <\/em>information that could reasonably call into question the
\ntruthfulness of a claim, and they continued to make the claim as unequivocally true, then they may be committing fraud\teven if they believe the claim to be true themselves<\/em>. The fact that they now know that there is reason to believe that it might not be true and
\n\tyet still make the claim as true is a violation of the law.\u201d9<\/p>\n
\n\tclaiming that it is biologically impossible according to scientific research, and that evidence is accepted by the court, the church\u2019s representation of
\n\ttheir belief could be deemed to be false. If any church leader has been exposed to this scientific research, even if he doesn\u2019t believe it himself, he
\n\tcould be accused of committing fraud by continuing to promote that belief despite the existence of scientific evidence to the contrary. Now consider how
\n\tmany scientific \u201cdiscoveries\u201d there are that contradict religious beliefs and you will have some idea of the magnitude of the problem churches could
\n\tpotentially face.<\/p>\n
\n\tmore wisely, he will succeed where presently he has failed. The one thing we can know for sure is that we have probably not heard the last of this issue.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"