"Book of Mormon, Book of Lies"--New book and theory?

[_Fence Sitter]

OK, I will read Marco Polo myself and do an independent evaluation. by the way, there is no one base source.

Lucy,

Can you tell me where your tag line quote can be found?

Thanks

[_Always Changing]

I found it at Carm (ugh), but it comes from "Mormonism Unvailed." http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm

[_Mormon Think]

I've been curious about this book:

An American Fraud: One Lawyer's Case against Mormonism

566 pages must be some case!

I liked it a lot. It starts with Kay's personal story and interweavs legal issues as they relate and then finally the methodology in which a legal case for fraud could be made against the church. My wife hates reading any book critical of the church, yet she liked this one.

[_Darth J]

I've argued many times that the LDS church would be protected from such a suit by the First Amendment. There might be something in the book that would change my mind.

There is no possible way that a hypothetical lawsuit like that would get past the Entanglement Doctrine.

[Guest]

I liked it a lot. It starts with Kay's personal story and interweavs legal issues as they relate and then finally the methodology in which a legal case for fraud could be made against the church. My wife hates reading any book critical of the church, yet she liked this one.

Since I only read the publicity excerpt, maybe it is worthwhile.

[_Res Ipsa]

I've argued many times that the LDS church would be protected from such a suit by the First Amendment. There might be something in the book that would change my mind.

There is no possible way that a hypothetical lawsuit like that would get past the Entanglement Doctrine.

That's been my argument, too. I haven't read Kay's book, so I don't know if her argument is the same one I've heard before: the case could be based on evidentiary facts that would not require a court to rule on the truth-claims of Mormonism. But absent something like collecting fast offerings with a representation of how the money would be used and then actually buying Rolls Royce's for leadership, I don't see it.

by the way, I think it would be a bad thing to give the government the power to determine the truth value of religious claims.

[_Darth J]

There is no possible way that a hypothetical lawsuit like that would get past the Entanglement Doctrine.

That's been my argument, too. I haven't read Kay's book, so I don't know if her argument is the same one I've heard before: the case could be based on evidentiary facts that would not require a court to rule on the truth-claims of Mormonism.

There's still no way you could adjudicate those factual claims in court without deciding whether the Church is true. The fact claims of the Church (existence of the Nephites, Book of Abraham a translation of the Chandler papyri, etc., etc.) are inseparable from its religious truth claims. That's good news to avoid a lawsuit for religious fraud, but bad news everywhere outside of a courtroom. Like the example you give below, you would have to tie a fraud-type claim against a church to tangible things, not just spiritual matters. An example of that, if you want to read it, is a case from the Utah Court of Appeals called Hancock v. True Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days.

But absent something like collecting fast offerings with a representation of how the money would be used and then actually buying Rolls Royce's for leadership, I don't see it.

by the way, I think it would be a bad thing to give the government the power to determine the truth value of religious claims.

The fast offering thing is kind of curious. Current LDS Church donations slips indicate that funds will be used at the sole discretion of the Church, and not necessarily for the purpose designated on the donation slip. That looks suspiciously like an attempt to avoid any church members making a donor intent claim against the Church.

[_Res Ipsa]

Hancock is the case I use as an example. The other problems I see with the evidentiary fact approach ares the elements of intended reliance, actual reliance, and reasonable reliance. Mormoni's promise makes these elements pretty tough to prove for something like using a painting of Smith translating using the Urim & Thummin instead of a rock in a hat. (As one example.)

[_Darth J]

Hancock is the case I use as an example.

Oh, I see now.

The other problems I see with the evidentiary fact approach ares the elements of intended reliance, actual reliance, and reasonable reliance. Mormoni's promise makes these elements pretty tough to prove for something like using a painting of Smith translating using the Urim & Thummin instead of a rock in a hat. (As one example.)

That is true. The "reasonable" element of reasonable reliance would be quite difficult to handle when the ultimate arbiter of reality is a subjective emotional experience that means whatever the Church tells you it means.

[_palerobber]

The Book of Mormon is filled with 'tells' like this that shout from the housetops that it cannot be a fake. Nobody except those who experience the power of God could have the slightest clue what it is really like. It is not obvious to the uninitiated. This sort of sentiment is not comprehended except by fellow saints for its precision in telling what knowing the Lord is like.

?

this only makes sense if you submit that Joseph Smith never had the experience of "knowing the Lord" and therefore could not have authored the Book of Mormon.

("authored" as in "made it up", not as in "listed as the author on the title page")