British Judge Orders Mormon Leader to Prove Faith

800px-Thomas_S_Monson

PIC: Brian Tibbetts (CC)

This is probably nothing more than a stunt, but at least it’s an amusing one…

Via Raw Story:

A disgruntled former Mormon has convinced an English court to file two summonses to appear against Thomas S. Monson, the current president of the Mormon Church.

Tom Phillips based his complaint on the Fraud Act of 2006, a British law that outlaws making a profit off of false representations. According to Phillips, this is precisely what the Mormon Church does — it uses statements it knows to be factually untrue in order to secure tithes from members of the Church.

The facts in question, court records show, are tenets of the Mormon faith, including that Joseph Smith translated The Book of Mormon from ancient gold plates, that Native Americans are descendants of a family of Israelites, and that death didn’t exist on this planet until 6,000 years ago.

“These are not statements of mere ‘beliefs’ or opinions or theories,” Phillips wrote. “They are made as actual facts and their truthfulness can be objectively tested with evidence.”

Although Phillips can prove that Native Americans are not of Middle Eastern origins using contemporary genetic evidence, it is unlikely that such a finding would have the force of law in a British courtroom.

Keep reading.

, , ,

  • BuzzCoastin

    maybe the court could prove it’s right to judge first
    &
    maybe the legislature could prove it’s right to make laws
    then this guy could prove why religious bullshit
    is different from the court’s & legislature’s bullshit

    • American Cannibal

      Courts and legislatures assert their right to official fictions at the end of an executive’s gun. Mmhmm, and that’s encase in bullshit religious crap we accept to avoid getting shot! Ask the Indians, they know.

      • Simon Valentine

        the truth about shield-of-faith, sword-of-spirit

        by American Cannibal

        that soooo needs to exist on my bookshelf

        • American Cannibal

          OK, I’ll do it. Let’s hire Mike Tyson to write the content and Drew Friedman for the illustrations. I want Lizzie Grubman to do the PR campaign: book tour, tv tour, podcast tour etc. I want a full-page ad in USA Today.

          Hmmm…So much to do in order to get stage ready. I need to get a hair-cut and clothes. Why don’t you go see about a suit-of-armor for the cover photo while I get dressed.

          • Simon Valentine

            i’m think’n paperclip/staple chainmail
            i’ve got paperclips and staples setting here and just watched the x-files episode about “project paperclip”

  • mannyfurious

    If people want to believe such unabashedly stupid shit, and give their money away to a bunch of con artists who promote the unfathomably stupid bullshit, why does this guy care?

    I guess it brings up an interesting moral query: Do we have an ethical impetus to protect stupid people from idiotic beliefs? How do we define “stupid people” and “idiotic beliefs.” I live in a community with a strong LDS presence, and there are a surprisingly large amount of otherwise smart people who are members of the church. It actually never ceases to amaze me. Someone will come across as intelligent and curious and inquisitive and then at some point I’ll learn that that person is a Mormon and it’s always like, “What the fuck?”

    • emperorreagan

      I’ll take the nutty LDS beliefs I grew up around in a small Idaho city over the nutty economic beliefs I hear on the very rare occasions I go out to a fancy bar in DC or northern VA. If you go out in Arlington, everyone is dressed the same and every is having the same discussion. At least the Mormons were uniformly going to church then playing family games.

    • Gjallarbru

      This does support something I have been saying for a while, that religion is not just about faith. To have faith, there must be some kind of reason to believe. There are too many oddities in mormonism to simply believe.

      In my view, part of religion’s appeal, no matter the religion, is that it appeals to ego. All “successful” religions tell their members that they are either “choosen”, “special” and are set apart from the non-believers. The ego is flattered about the individual’s supposed status and prevent reason from interfering. And yes, I would apply that to Budhism, mostly to the monks. In their case, logic would dictate that if you come into the world only to reject it, you must love to waste your time. Yet, they are pumpous enough in their “nothingness” to tell us we should “leave” the world. So sure of themselves that they are on the right track. They have the arrogance to believe they know what is happening to / for all of us. Is that not ego?

      That being said, should we save people from themselves? I don’t know that we should even try. Make religions illegal and they will just meet in secret down in somebody’s basement. You can’t police their thoughts, and that is where it all starts.

      • mannyfurious

        My question was almost a rhetorical one. I obviously don’t believe in saving idiots from themselves. As I asked, how would we even begin to define such a term (or one similar)?

        I agree that a large appeal of religion has to do with what you wrote about how the ego responds. I would be open to the idea that this is true in the case even of Buddhists (it almost certainly is, to some extant), but your understanding of Buddhism–as it is exhibited in this post–seems lacking.

        • Gjallarbru

          I see all religions as being source of dogma, which I don’t agree with on principle.

          As for Budhism, I have read many text, and have spoken to and made many friends in the Budhist community around me. That being said, I do like Budhism more than most religions. Still they have a certainty about their beliefs which I find to be flattering to the ego. It is very flattering to think you know so much about human condition and reality.

          But, to say the least, my short glib about Budhism doesn’t expose my understanding in any echaustive terms. So yeah, as it stands, you have nothing but a lacking view of my understanding.

    • nestazhe265

      My Uncle Isaac just got a nice 12 month old
      Jeep from only workin on a pc at home… Read Full Article B­u­z­z­3­4­.­ℂ­o­m

  • Simon Valentine

    something tells me there won’t be fire from the sky burning bovines
    nor staves thrown into snakes

    so calling it a charisma-based sorcerer throw-down is jst weigh 2 fkn laborious

    how many rounds did i _1/2