Philips press release on first day in court

[_Maureen]

How Do I Prepare People for Baptism and Confirmation?

You can't be baptized unless you undertake to pay tithing....

I have a question.

Do the missionaries explain to the potential convert what the consequences will be, if after they are baptized they do not keep their covenants, as in pay their tithing? Are these potential converts aware of these consequences?

M.

[_Fence Sitter]

How Do I Prepare People for Baptism and Confirmation?

You can't be baptized unless you undertake to pay tithing....

I have a question.

Do the missionaries explain to the potential convert what the consequences will be, if after they are baptized they do not keep their covenants, as in pay their tithing? Are these potential converts aware of these consequences?

M.

No & probably not.

Simply because missionaries never consider those consequences themselves and, for the most part, are blissfully unaware of life outside of the church, they are only 18-22 years old after all.. As far as converts are concerned, the conversion process usually is a very short time and not much is required to actually get baptized. The retention rate is abysmal, as a result.

[Guest]

-

[_Res Ipsa]

I think that arguing tithing is optional is a mistake. I think it makes the church look weaselly, as payment of tithing is required to be a "member in good standing." I don't think a jury will be impressed. I think the stronger argument to make is "we teach our members to pay tithing because it is a commandment from god." Whether this is true is within the real of nonfalsifiable fact, and gives the church the argument that the intent of teaching members to pay tithing is not to hurt them or cause gain to the church -- the intent is to encourage them to keep the commandments of god, which will result in them being blessed.

[_Bazooka]

How Do I Prepare People for Baptism and Confirmation?

You can't be baptized unless you undertake to pay tithing....

I have a question.

Do the missionaries explain to the potential convert what the consequences will be, if after they are baptized they do not keep their covenants, as in pay their tithing? Are these potential converts aware of these consequences?

M.

No & probably not.

Simply because missionaries never consider those consequences themselves and, for the most part, are blissfully unaware of life outside of the church, they are only 18-22 years old after all.. As far as converts are concerned, the conversion process usually is a very short time and not much is required to actually get baptized. The retention rate is abysmal, as a result.

It could well be that the "milk before meat" policy is instrumental in proving the Church behaves fraudulently in obtaining monies.

22 For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.

Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning.

What is true with these two subjects is, if anything, doubly true in the field of religion. The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy.

It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it. Be careful that you build faith rather than destroy it.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-sem ... efore+meat

The doctrines of the Church make it explicitly clear that full disclosure is NOT to be given to potential converts and new members.
I would be staggered if the Phillips team don't make this exact point in court as it hoists the Church by its own petard.

[_Spanner]

I have a question.

Do the missionaries explain to the potential convert what the consequences will be, if after they are baptized they do not keep their covenants, as in pay their tithing? Are these potential converts aware of these consequences?

M.

No & probably not.

Simply because missionaries never consider those consequences themselves and, for the most part, are blissfully unaware of life outside of the church, they are only 18-22 years old after all.. As far as converts are concerned, the conversion process usually is a very short time and not much is required to actually get baptized. The retention rate is abysmal, as a result.

It could well be that the "milk before meat" policy is instrumental in proving the Church behaves fraudulently in obtaining monies.

22 For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.

Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning.

What is true with these two subjects is, if anything, doubly true in the field of religion. The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy.

It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it. Be careful that you build faith rather than destroy it.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-sem ... efore+meat

The doctrines of the Church make it explicitly clear that full disclosure is NOT to be given to potential converts and new members.
I would be staggered if the Phillips team don't make this exact point in court as it hoists the Church by its own petard.

The Packer speech alone should be a smoking gun. I can't see how the church can avoid the charge of fraud by failing to disclose relevant information which would influence a potential convert. My TBM mother maintains she would never have joined if she had known about polygamy and polyandry right at the start. She uses this to justify her own concealment of information from her seminary students and potential converts.

[_honorentheos]

I think that arguing tithing is optional is a mistake. I think it makes the church look weaselly, as payment of tithing is required to be a "member in good standing." I don't think a jury will be impressed. I think the stronger argument to make is "we teach our members to pay tithing because it is a commandment from god." Whether this is true is within the realm of nonfalsifiable fact, and gives the church the argument that the intent of teaching members to pay tithing is not to hurt them or cause gain to the church -- the intent is to encourage them to keep the commandments of god, which will result in them being blessed.

I think you have a very good point. It's an interesting calculated risk. It seems your suggestion would align better and compliment the religious freedom argument rather than looking like they are throwing the kitchen sink at the case. I'm curious if the next round of defense will include LDS members on the team or if the Church sees making friends of Mammon as necessary to buffering what gets said and done in court from the membership? The argument that tithing is optional could be shrugged off as a necessary measure done under legal advisement, and not directly dishonest even if weaselly as you said.

[_Jaybear]

I think that arguing tithing is optional is a mistake. I think it makes the church look weaselly, as payment of tithing is required to be a "member in good standing." I don't think a jury will be impressed. I think the stronger argument to make is "we teach our members to pay tithing because it is a commandment from god." Whether this is true is within the real of nonfalsifiable fact, and gives the church the argument that the intent of teaching members to pay tithing is not to hurt them or cause gain to the church -- the intent is to encourage them to keep the commandments of god, which will result in them being blessed.

I disagree. I haven't followed the case, but I were to make a case for fraud, it would be premised on the Brethrens' claims that they speak to and for Christ, and are passing along Gods commandments as his agent.

Here they are telling you that God commands you to pay ten % of your income to the organization that pay their salary.

How is that any different than a spiritualist who purports to speak to the dead convincing a widow that her dead husband wants her to give your money to the spiritualist so she can carry out her important ministry. While that claim is not "falsifiable" its still fraudulent.

[_Chap]

I think that arguing tithing is optional is a mistake. I think it makes the church look weaselly, as payment of tithing is required to be a "member in good standing." I don't think a jury will be impressed. I think the stronger argument to make is "we teach our members to pay tithing because it is a commandment from god." Whether this is true is within the real of nonfalsifiable fact, and gives the church the argument that the intent of teaching members to pay tithing is not to hurt them or cause gain to the church -- the intent is to encourage them to keep the commandments of god, which will result in them being blessed.

I disagree. I haven't followed the case, but I were to make a case for fraud, it would be premised on the Brethrens' claims that they speak to and for Christ, and are passing along Gods commandments as his agent.

Here they are telling you that God commands you to pay ten % of your income to the organization that pay their salary.

How is that any different than a spiritualist who purports to speak to the dead convincing a widow that her dead husband wants her to give your money to the spiritualist so she can carry out her important ministry. While that claim is not "falsifiable" its still fraudulent.

We have to concentrate on the legal practicalities here. (I'm sorry to go on like a cracked record, but it is essential to stick to that point if we want to understand what is going on, and what might or might not occur as the case goes forward.)

Philips is conducting a criminal prosecution for fraud in an English court. That means that his charges, including the falsity of any claims made by the church, must be proved to a jury 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which is a very high standard of proof.

It is much more difficult (if not impossible) to prove a medium fraudulent 'beyond a reasonable doubt' than to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Hence Philips is, as a matter of common sense, preferring to base his prosecution as far as possible on claims more like the latter than the former.

[_Jaybear]

We have to concentrate on the legal practicalities here. (I'm sorry to go on like a cracked record, but it is essential to stick to that point if we want to understand what is going on, and what might or might not occur as the case goes forward.)

Philips is conducting a criminal prosecution for fraud in an English court. That means that his charges, including the falsity of any claims made by the church, must be proved to a jury 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which is a very high standard of proof.

It is much more difficult (if not impossible) to prove a medium fraudulent 'beyond a reasonable doubt' than to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Hence Philips is, as a matter of common sense, preferring to base his prosecution as far as possible on claims more like the latter than the former.

I understand legal practicality. I have tried many a fraud case.

Fraud:

Intentional misrepresentation of a fact upon which one relies to his detriment.

While its easy to prove the earth is more than 6,000 years old, what is the detriment?

The key to a fraud case here the claim of divine agency and the divine commandment to tithe (to the LDS Church). Those are the two elements that separate the LDS Church from most all other churches. They are also the reason the LDS Church is wealthy.

Philips won't have to prove that Monson is not God's agent/prophet if Monson is not prepared to make that claim under oath, and subject to cross examination.

The last time an LDS "prophet" was sworn in at the Smoot hearings, he admitted that he had received no revelations from God.

If Monson claims that he speaks to and for God, he will end up looking like a fool on the stand. When did you see him last? What was he wearing? What did he look like? How did get into the room. Did he speak KJ english? Did you touch him?