I don’t know about that...I just posted that the mormons chapels and other buildings that are open to the general public get the exemption...the temples are taxed at 20%, they’re getting an 80% tax exemption for the temples.
Seems like a pretty generous interpretation of their tax laws since they’re saying the temples engage in some type of “charitable purposes”, which, in fact, they don’t.
Here’s something on what’s happened with case number LJA Code 2570 so far...I think January 31, 2014
Two of the sections in the fraud act 2006 are quoted in the case: Section 2, “Fraud by false representation” and Section 3, “Fraud by failing to disclose information”.
The relevant parts of the sections texts read:
Section 2 “Fraud by false representation”
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and (b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
Section 3 “Fraud by failing to disclose information”
A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and
(b)intends, by failing to disclose the information—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
Evidence supporting fraud in violation Section 2 (fraud by false representation) is almost entirely ideological, and claims that Monson made misleading statements to encourage Mormon members to donate money based on false statements that have been shown by science, the media, academics and other institutions to be incorrect and perhaps even slanderous statements with the intent to defraud by encouraging donations to the church on the basis of the false statements. An example of one statement in the prosecutor’s case states that Monson has taught the Book of Mormon is a divine work given by God to Joseph Smith, and is “most correct book on earth, and an ancient historical record.” However, the prosecutor will argue that academics have shown that “the Book of Mormon has been shown to be a work compiled in the 19th century by Joseph Smith with or without the help of others.” And that “DNA evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that the ancestors of Native Americans came from Siberia around 15,000 30,000 years ago. No trace has been found of Hebrews in either North or South America, and there’s no archaeological evidence for any of the Book of Mormon people.”
The prosecutor argues in his case, “These are not statements of mere ‘beliefs’ or opinions or theories, they are made as actual facts and their truthfulness can be objectively tested with evidence, unlike religious claims and beliefs.” That the LDS prophet has “made statements of fact which are untrue and he knows, or should know, they are untrue” as an argument that he has perpetuated fraud on the British people with “The purpose … to facilitate the conversion of individuals to become members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to pay to said church 10% of their income on a continuing, permanent basis.”
Evidence supporting fraud in violation of Section 3 (Fraud by failing to disclose information) uses LDS church documents showing that they know certain statements are false but continue to teach them and encourage members to pay tithing. For example, the claim that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record about Hebrews filling the lands in ancient America can be disputed by DNA evidence, and the church has acknowledged they know about the evidence, but have not taught this to members.
Thomas S Monson must appear himself on March 14..
In England 2 weeks or more BEFORE the trial date the accused could arrange for someone to appear in his palace or to have his lawyers appear for him if he is too sick to travel etc but the 2 weeks grace is past..
thers just ten days to go now and Monson hasn’t answered the charges as yet..
He has to appear in person..
heres some info..
The summons was signed 31 January 2014 and issued under section 1 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, on receiving a formal Statement (described in that section as an ‘information’) alleging that someone has committed an offence, the court may issue—
(a) a summons requiring that person to attend court; or
(b) a warrant for that person’s arrest, if—
(i) the alleged offence must or may be tried in the Crown Court,
(ii) the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment”
What's a HATER like you know about “charitable purposes”?
--MormonDude(What's more charitable than getting all wet for DEAD PEOPLE in the TEMPLE so that they'll have ANOTHER chance to hear and OBEY the Restored Gospel®?)
So you accept the secular authority’s definition of “charity”?
Do you know the Biblical definition of “Charity”?
Here’s the UK’s definition:
The 13 descriptions of purposes listed in the Charities Act are:
(a) the prevention or relief of poverty
(b)the advancement of education
(c) the advancement of religion
(d) the advancement of health or the saving of lives
(e) the advancement of citizenship or community development
(f) the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
(g) the advancement of amateur sport
(h) the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
(i) the advancement of environmental protection or improvement
(j) the relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage
(k) the advancement of animal welfare
(l) the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown, or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services
(m) any other purposes currently recognised as charitable or which can be recognised as charitable by analogy to, or within the spirit of, purposes falling within (a) to (l) or any other purpose recognised as charitable under the law of England and Wales
The Charities Act does not define what each of these descriptions of purposes mean. However, it does provide some definitions, or partial definitions, for some of the descriptions. These are set out in Annex D.
Here’s the relevant portion of Annex D:
Annex D: Definitions in the Charities Act
Part 1
Meaning of “charity” and “charitable purpose”
CHAPTER 1
General
3 (1)
(m) any other purposes -
(i) that are not within paragraphs (a) to (l) but are recognised as charitable purposes by virtue of section 5 (recreational and similar trusts, etc.) or under the old law,
(ii) that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of, any purposes falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (l) or sub-paragraph (i), or
(iii) that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of, any purposes which have been recognised, under the law relating to charities in England and Wales, as falling within sub-paragraph (ii) or this sub-paragraph.
3 (2)In subsection (1) -
(a) in paragraph (c), “religion” includes -
(i) a religion which involves belief in more than one god, and
(ii) a religion which does not involve belief in a god,
This fight is the smoke from a far off fire. Once it’s burning on your doorstep it will be too late. Religious liberty is to everyone’s benefit, even atheists... and Mormons.