European Court Of Human Rights Rules Rules Preston LDS Temple Not Entitled To Same Tax Exemption As Chapels

In the United States, temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are customarily awarded the same tax exemptions as chapels. However, this is not necessarily the case elsewhere, and in the United Kingdom, British authorities withdrew the tax exemption awarded to the LDS Church for its temple in Preston. Instead of earning a complete statutory tax exemption, the temple would only qualify for an 80 percent exemption. The Church filed suit with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), claiming this decision violated two articles of the European Convention of Human Rights, and on March 4th, 2013, the ECHR ruled against the LDS Church. Media stories have been published by the Independent and the BBC.

Applicability: Potentially applies to any area under the jurisdiction of the ECHR. Consequently, this could apply to any other LDS temple in the area, which is probably one of the reasons why the Church decided to push it all the way to the ECHR. According to the Telegraph, Malcolm Adcock, UK spokesman for the LDS Church, said "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints respects the decision of the Strasbourg court, and is grateful that the charitable activities of churches are recognized under UK and European law."

Below is a summary of case highlights; the full details are available on the specific case page of the ECHR:

Background: Under the United Kingdom's Local Government Finance Act 1988, a valuation officer must compile and maintain a local rating list for his or her area. Premises included on the list are liable for the payment of business rates. Premises used for charitable purposes are entitled to charity business rates relief, which cuts the amount of rates payable by 80 percent. Places of public religious worship are wholly exempt from the tax.

History: The dispute first arose in 1998. Although the Preston temple was listed as a building used for charitable purpose and therefore retained a liability to pay only 20 percent rates, it was refused the statutory tax exemption reserved for places of public religious worship because the temple is only open to recommend holders rather than the general public. The valuation officer did accept that the stake center on the same site, with its chapel, associated hall and ancillary rooms, was a place of public religious worship accessible to the general public which was entitled to the exemption. Other buildings on the site, for example a building providing accommodation for missionaries and various ancillary buildings were subject to full business rates. For the financial year 1999/2000, the applicant paid a total of GBP 117,360 in respect of all the rateable buildings on its Preston site.

In March 2001, the applicant applied to have the temple removed from the rating list, claiming the benefit of the exemption for places of public religious worship. In October 2004, the Lancashire Valuation Tribunal granted the application for appeal and determined the temple to be exempt under the statutory provision. However, in December 2005, the Lands Tribunal overturned that decision. The applicant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 24 November 2006. The applicant then appealed to the House of Lords, who in turn dismissed the appeal in July 2008 on the basis that the temple, because of the limited public access, did not qualify as a place of worship. The LDS Church then appealed to the ECHR, claiming that the decision was a violation of Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, alternately referred to as the European Convention of Human Rights.

-- Article 9: (1). Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. (2). Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

-- Article 14: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Apostate Ex-Mormons Launch "Private Prosecution" Against LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson For Fraud, British Judge Orders Him To Appear

Although the American mainstream media is just now starting to pick up this story, we have a report from several mainstream British media sources. The Telegraph and the Daily Mail report that an anti-Mormon activist, Tom Phillips, who runs the MormonThink website, has launched a private prosecution attempt in the United Kingdom on behalf of two apostate ex-Mormons, Stephen Bloor and Christopher Denis Ralph, claiming that President Monson fraudulently obtained tithing from them under Section 1 of the Elizabeth II Fraud Act 2006 on the basis of doctrinal teachings which the apostates claim are untrue. According to the Arizona Republic, Phillips alleged that the Mormon Church in the UK has received $257m (£157.5m, €190m) in member donations since 2007, and that these donations were "mandatory" for good standing in the church. As a result, District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe issued a formal summons for President Monson to appear at a hearing scheduled to take place at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London on March 14th, 2014 and answer the seven allegations laid against him.

The summons was signed on January 31st, 2014 and issued under section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, which specifies that upon receiving a formal statement alleging that someone has committed an offense, the court may issue a summons requiring that person to attend court, and even issue a warrant for that person's arrest if the alleged offense must or may be tried in the Crown Court, and if the alleged offense is punishable with imprisonment.

Two separate summons were issued, one on behalf of each plaintiff. They are otherwise identical, and a screenshot is posted below:

Click to enlarge

Ironically, although Tom Phillips is identified as the webmaster of MormomThink, the website currently and disingenuously states "The MormonThink website is not involved in this private legal action. We merely report the news" Yeah, surrre. LOL!.

Details of the Plaintiffs: According to IBTimes UK, Phillips, who lives in Portugal, formerly served as a stake president, area controller and financial director for the LDS Church's UK corporate entities, as well as other positions within the church between 1969 and 2002. Phillips also allegedly received the Second Anointing. Stephen Bloor was a third generation Mormon, a podiatrist who served as a bishop until he decided the LDS Church gave many "false representations". He penned a resignation as bishop and now writes a blog. Christopher Ralph was a Mormon convert since 1971, who served in bishoprics, and in 2012 helped write open letters to the European Area Presidency, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on behalf of some UK Mormons who were troubled by questions and doubts. He supposedly received no response.

Worst Case Scenario: The summons declares that failure to attend could result in a warrant being issued for President Monson's arrest, although extradition would be required, and the offense must also be an offense in the United States for extradition to be approved. Once President Monson is processed by Westminster, the court could refer the case to Southwark Crown Court for further proceedings. According to Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, the maximum penalty for the allegations contained in the summons is ten years imprisonment and a fine for each offense.

LDS Church Reaction: The Church dismissed the summons as based upon bizarre allegations, and signalled that President Monson has no plans to attend. Malcolm Adcock, the church’s public affairs director for Europe, said, “The Church occasionally receives documents like this that seek to draw attention to an individual’s personal grievance or embarrass church leaders. These bizarre allegations fit into that category.” Unofficial LDS reaction is documented on LDS Freedom Forum.

LDS Church Targeted With Child Sex Abuse Lawsuit In Berkeley County, West Virginia In Relation To The Christopher Michael Jensen Case

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been targeted with a lawsuit in relation to child sex abuse in Berkeley County, West Virginia. The primary plaintiffs are 12 children who were reportedly sexually abused by a now-former LDS member, twenty-two-year old Christopher Michael Jensen, who was convicted of related crimes in criminal court. Additional plaintiffs include five Jane Does and five John Does, identified as being parents, guardians, and "next friends" of the children. Representing the plaintiffs are attorneys from the Fitzsimmons Law Firm in Wheeling, WV, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP in Washington DC, and Kosnoff Fasy PLLC in Seattle (Tim Kosnoff was also involved in the Curtis case). The primary media story is the Martinsburg Journal-News, but there is also interesting discussion on the Mormon Discussions forum.

-- Read the 66-page suit document HERE

Named as defendants are the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the church; Don Fishel, who was the bishop of the Hedgesville Ward for the Martinsburg stake of the church between 2007 and 2013 and who also served as a member of the Stake High Council for Martinsburg; Steven Grow, stake president in Martinsburg; Jensen, who was a member and elder of the Hedgesville Ward of the church; Jensen's father, a high priest and member of the Stake High Council for Martinsburg between 2007 and 2010; and Jensen's mother, a member of the Hedgesville Ward and Relief Society president for the church in Martinsburg between 2006 and 2009. The lawsuit seeks unspecified punitive and compensatory damages; attorneys for the plaintiffs maintain that the Church initially tried to cover up the abuse, then reacted too slowly to mitigate it.

Summary of Events: The abuse of the 12 children suing the Church began in 2008. However, there were allegations that Christopher Michael Jensen may have abused additional children as early as 2006. These early allegations were allegedly communicated to Jensen's parents and to local Church leaders; in 2007, the Martinsburg Stake High Council, whose members included Steven Grow, Don Fishel and Jensen's father, held a meeting also attended by Jensen's mother, during which the alleged sexual abuse of two children by Christopher Michael Jensen was allegedly discussed. However, Fishel denied the allegations as hearsay, and so the High Council failed to report the allegations of abuse to authorities as required by law. Local church leaders allegedly continued to portray Jensen as a church member who could provide leadership and counsel to young church members, and even recommended Jensen as a babysitter for church families.

The first of the plaintiffs came forward in early 2008, when a then four-year-old boy told Jensen's mother that Jensen had sexually abused him. Fishel, who was also allegedly already put on notice that Jensen had been accused of sexually abusing children, was told by the mother of another alleged victim that Jensen had abused her younger son. The suit alleges that instead of reporting the abuse to authorities or taking action to warn or protect other children, the Church, through its agents, actively covered up the abuse and assisted Jensen in committing further acts by enabling him to babysit for and live with other church families with young children. The pattern allegedly continued for more than five years until Jensen was indicted in October 2012 in Berkeley County. On February 6th, 2013, Jensen was found guilty of one count of first-degree sexual assault and two counts of sexual abuse, and subsequently sentenced to 35 to 75 years in prison on July 29th. The judge also ordered that Jensen register for life as a convicted sex offender and that he be placed on 50 years of supervised release upon his release from prison. He was found not guilty of one count of first-degree sexual assault involving the youngest boy. On August 18th, the Martinsburg Stake High Council formally excommunicated Jensen.

On a related note, a February 2013 story from the Herald-Mail reveals that sexual abuse and assault charges were also filed against Jensen for allegedly assaulting a 20-year-old woman in a church parking lot in September 2012, and were pending in Berkeley County Magistrate Court at the time. However, in light of the child abuse conviction, prosecutors chose not to pursue the charges, and on March 15th, a Berkeley County magistrate granted the state's motion to discontinue the case.

The suit also alleges that emissaries from Salt Lake City instructed witnesses not to talk with attorneys representing the children suing the church, and that church leaders tried to intimidate the families of the children suing the church by trying to convince them to abandon their claims "lest they run afoul of church teachings regarding forgiveness".

Update October 30th: WHAG Channel 4 picked up the story and published reaction from local LDS leaders:

Church officials released a statement saying that they deny any allegations of a cover up. They felt they were instrumental in reporting the matter to local law enforcement officials, while imposing church discipline on the perpetrator and helping out the victims families.

Prognosis: The LDS Church has a track record of settling these types of suits out of court. The motivation to settle will be strong here, since it appears that local Church leaders were quite reluctant to take action against Jensen initially. While the presumption of innocence is sacred, if state law requires religious leaders to report such allegations to law enforcement, then they must report it. The plaintiffs have also retained some impressive legal muscle to represent them.

The behavior of local Church leaders in this case insufficiently reflect the LDS Church's commitment to resolving child abuse when it occurs and deterring future occurrences. In this statement published a while back, the Church set forth their policy:

Simply put, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to child abusers. When abuse is suspected, the Church directs its members to first contact the legal authorities and then their local bishop for counseling and support. The Church cooperates fully with law enforcement in investigating incidents of child abuse and bringing perpetrators to justice.

Members of the Church found guilty of child abuse are also subject to the laws of God. President Hinckley has said: "Our hearts reach out to the offender, but we cannot tolerate the sin of which he may be guilty. Where there has been offense, there is a penalty." Convicted child abusers are excommunicated, the highest possible discipline our faith can impose. Excommunicated members cannot take part in Church meetings or hold responsibilities of any kind within the congregation.

Can child abusers who have paid the legal price for their crimes and gone through a rigorous repentance process with local Church leaders become members of the Church again? Yes. As Christians, we believe in forgiveness. But can they ever again, in their lifetime, serve in any capacity that would put them in direct contact with children? Absolutely not. Forgiveness does not remove the consequences of sin. Protection of the family is a first principle of the Church.

Since 1995 the Church has placed a confidential annotation on the membership record of members who previously abused children. These records follow them to any congregation where they move, thereby alerting bishops not to place them in situations with children. As far as we know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the first religious institution to create such a tracking mechanism. We hold the family sacred and protect its children. This explains why the Church is one of the few denominations that imposes formal ecclesiastical discipline on mere members (as opposed to official clergy) for sexually abusive conduct.

LDS Church Criticizes Supreme Court Rulings On Proposition 8 And DOMA, Remains Committed To Strengthening Traditional Marriage

Those who were concerned that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was caving in to political correctness when they supported the decision by the Boy Scouts of America to admit gay Scouts need to disabuse themselves of that notion right now. On June 26th, 2013, in response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California Proposition 8, the LDS Church explicitly reaffirmed its commitment to defending traditional marriage as well as democratic expression through the ballot box. Here's the official reaction by the LDS Church:

"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.

"In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved.

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states."

According to Joanna Brooks, local Mormon action independent of Church headquarters is also expected. In one Washington, D.C., area stake, LDS Church leaders sent an email message to members requesting their attendance at a National Day of Prayer on religious freedom convened by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this Thursday (June 27th) in Arlington, Virginia. At least Brooks is intellectually honest enough to admit that only a minority of Mormons have expressed support for the Supreme Court decisions. Other Christians joining the LDS Church in opposition include the Most Reverend John C. Wester, Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, Southern Evangelical Seminary President Richard Land, and American Family Association President Tim Wildmon.

The two decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are available online:

-- Hollingsworth v. Perry: This is the 35-page decision over Proposition 8. From the SCOTUSBlog, a short explanation in plain English. After two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court ruled that they could do so under state law. But the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case. Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Minority opinion by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor.

-- United States v. Windsor: This is the 77-page decision over DOMA. From the SCOTUSBlog, a short explanation in plain English. In ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, the Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples. Majority opinion by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Dissenting was Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito.

Additional legal analysis from a multitude of sources is available on this separate page of SCOTUS.

Unofficial LDS Reaction: LDS Freedom Forum has opened up a discussion on how these decisions may ultimately affect temple marriage. The LDS Bloggernacle, which tends to be left-of-center politically, has exploded with reaction (after the jump):

LDS Group Files Federal Lawsuit Against The City Of Mission, Texas For Blocking Plans To Construct A Chapel

Update December 8th: On December 7th, the Mission City Council reversed itself and voted to allow the conditional use permit necessary for the LDS Church to build a chapel in Mission; updated post HERE.

A group of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have filed suit in federal court against the city of Mission, Texas for obstructing plans to construct a chapel on a five-acre plot on the corner of Bryan Road and 2 Mile Line in Mission. The suit claims the city is violating their religious freedom.

The dispute has been continuing for nearly a year. The LDS group claims the city has blocked the move by changing the voting rules for permit approval, and that at least one member of the council had a conflict of interest in voting on the issue. A subsequent story by The Monitor reveals that the council member in question is Norie Gonzalez Garza, whose real estate company represented the neighbors who opposed the construction of the chapel in their neighborhood because they wanted to keep the area residential and avoid lowering their property values.

-- Read the 25-page suit document HERE
-- Read the three-page Notice of Claim sent to the city on August 23rd HERE.

Even more background was published by The Monitor back on September 15th, 2011. When the local stake announced their plans to buy the land and build a chapel, they sought a conditional use permit. However, nine of the 12 landowners located within 200 feet of the property signed a petition against the church because they wanted to preserve the rural nature of the area and that the size of the building and the parking lot were too big and would attract too much traffic.

Lawyers for the LDS Church contend that Mission violated its own ordinances in the vote. Mission law states that if at least 20 percent of neighbors to a property within an area with a proposed zoning change have signed a petition against it, at least 75 percent of the council will have to approve it. But the church argues that it was asking for a conditional use permit and not a zoning change, so the ordinance does not apply.