PDA

View Full Version : Does Mormonism hate Christianity? Pt 2 (The proof)


Exmo-Robertson
July 14th 2003, 06:27 PM
The Mormon believes that someday the LDS Church will be the thread that holds up the Constitution of the United States, meaning that it will only be because of them that we will have any rights. God help us all should this ever really come to past. The following is an good example of what I refer to. This is Mormonism at its true black heart and shows what our lives would be like under such a rule. Mormons are World Class when it comes to their own, and the protection of their godless beliefs.

The following is a reprint of a law suit filed by the ACLU in Utah in behalf of some Christians Missionaries because of abuse done by the members of the LDS Church and is reprinted without any changes from their web site. Read and learn. Dana

NATHAN HULT - 4704
100 North 100 East
Logan, Utah 84321
Telephone: (435) 753-7400

STEPHEN C. CLARK - 4551
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF UTAH FOUNDATION, INC.
355 North 300 West. Suite 1
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
Telephone: (801) 521-9862

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

______________________________________________________________________________

KURT VAN GORDEN,
CINDY VAN GORDEN, COMPLAINT
TRINITY EVANGELICAL BAPTIST
FELLOWSHIP AND MINISTRIES, and
CHRIS BREYER

Plaintiffs,

vs.

UTAH STATE FAIR. STATE OF UTAH.
SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPT.,
CITY OF SALT LAKE, DONNA DAHL, Case No. 2:98CV868C

JOHN WHITTAKER, SHERI WHITTAKER,
JESSE POWELL, JACKIE POWELL,
FRANK WERNER. JOHN RICHARD EVANS, Judge: Tena Campbell
STEVEN SMITH, SERGENT CHUCK GILBERT,
STEVE HUTTO, and JOHN & JANE DOES
1-1O, in their individual and official capacities.

Defendants

___________________________________________________

Parties

1. The Plaintiffs, Kurt and Cindy Van Gorden, husband and wife. (hereinafter Mr. or Mrs. Van Gorden, respectively, or “the Van Gordens”) are individual persons and residents of the State of California.

2. Trinity Evangelical Baptist Fellowship and Ministries, dba Jude 3 Missions and dba Utah Gospel Mission (hereinafter collectively “Jude 3 Missions”), is a non-profit California corporation registered in Utah as a foreign corporation.

3. Chris Breyer is the Vice President of Jude 3 Missions and is a resident of California.

4. The Utah State Fair Corporation is a governmental subdivision of the State of Utah. It was created by and was funded by the State of Utah at the time of the incidents described herein and is authorized to operate the Utah State Fair (“State Fair”) pursuant to the laws of the State of Utah (UCA 9-4-1 1 01 et seq.)

5. The City of Salt Lake City, Utah authorized by and created under the laws of the State of Utah.

6. The Salt Lake City Police Department is authorized under the law of the State of Utah and the laws of the City of Salt Lake City.

7. All acts complained of herein occurred in Salt Lake City, State of Utah.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

8. This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to:

a. 28 U.S.C. 1331 in that this case arises under the United States Constitution.

b. 28 U.S.C. 1332 in that the matter in controversy exceeds $50,000.00 and this case it involves a controversy between citizens of one State and another State.

c. 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.

Venue

9. This Court is the proper venue in that the Defendants all are subdivisions of the State of Utah, or employed by the State of Utah, and all of the actions at issue in this matter occurred in the State of Utah.

Background

10. Mr. Van Gorden applied on behalf of the Jude 3 Missions for a booth at the Utah State Fair n 1986, 1987 and 1988 and was denied a booth at the State Fair allegedly because they were full.

11. In July of 1988 the Utah State Fair advertised in local newspapers that they had additional booths available. Mr. Van Gorden called the Fair, protesting that he had been rejected for three years purportedly because there was no space, vet now the Fair was advertising the availability of space. Mr. Van Gorden was told by Pam Riley, an employee of the State Fair, that the real reason his former applications had been rejected was because his literature did not cater to the people of the State of Utah. After protest to Alice Shearer of the Utah State Department for Commerce and Economic Development (which oversaw Fair Operations at the time) and to the Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Van Gorden was able to obtain a booth.

12. Three days into the 1988 Fair, the booth was shut down without written notice because the literature being distributed at the booth by the Van Gordens and other Jude 3 Missions co-workers was alleged to be “offensive” to Mormons. After the intervention of attorney Robyn Blumner of the American Civil Liberties Union (wherein it was pointed out to the State Fair Board that booths operated by members of the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints at the Fair criticized Baptists, Presbyterians. and Methodists by name which is offensive to Protestants), the State Fair Board permitted a reopening of the booth.

13. Thereafter, the Van Gordens maintained a booth at the Fair for the Jude 3 Missions through 1996 (9 consecutive years), publishing a newspaper and distributing it each year, although they were harassed each year by administrative personnel at the Fair.

14. In September 1996, the Van Gordens obtained two booths, one on behalf of Jude 3 Missions and a separate booth on behalf of the “Rev. Kurt Van Gorden, author/speaker” for the promotion and selling of religious books written by Mr. Van Gorden. Six days before the opening of the 1996 Fair, the Assistant to the Director of the Fair, Donna Dahl, told Mr. Van Gorden by telephone that “this is the last year that you will have those books at this Fair.”

15. The Jude 3 Missions booth rental contract and the Van Gorden’s personal booth rental contract for 1996 had an additional clause, not found in any of the other contracts for booths at the Fair. They provided that “Exhibitor may not take pictures of Fair patrons without their express written permission.” Despite protesting that such provision infringed on their constitutional rights as journalists, but believing that all other journalistic media representatives were likewise barred by a similar provision, the contract was signed by Kurt Van Gorden. The Fair had been aware of Mr. Van Gorden’s and the Jude 3 Missions journalistic background for eight years.

16. On September 10, 1996, the Van Gordens noted that some of their books were being stolen at their personal booth, the one rented for “Rev. Kurt Van Gorden, author/speaker.” On the following morning, September 11, 1996, Mr. Van Gorden asked the Building Supervisor an agent of the Fair, if he could monitor the book table and cash box with his personal video camera from the back of the booth. The Building Supervisor gave his permission and said it would be a good idea. He also added that he would double check, and if there was a problem he would let the Van Gordens know. He never returned and informed the Van Gordens to the contrary.

17. On Friday, September 13, 1996, Mr. Van Gorden reported two incidents of harassment at his booth to Cindy Pearcy, the Commercial Exhibit secretary of the Fair, and to Donna Dahl, Assistant Director of the Fair, and informed both them that they had recorded both incidents on their security video camera at their personal booth. Cindy Pearcy said it was good for Mr. Van Gorden to watch his things, but as she was leaving she directed Mr. Van Gorden to inform Donna Dahl of the same. Donna Dahl became upset, accusing Mr. Van Gorden of taking pictures in violation of his contract. Mr. Van Gorden informed her that he had received permission 3 day earlier from the Building Supervisor to monitor for theft. Ms. Dahl said she would talk further with Mr. Van Gorden on the following day

18. On Saturday, September 14, 1996, Donna Dahl. John Whittaker (CEO of the Utah State Fairpark and Director of the Utah State Fair), Sherri Whittaker (the wife of John Whittaker), and Detective Frank Wemer of the Salt Lake City Police Department went to the [Jude 3 Missions] booth at the Coliseum and demanded the video camera. No video camera was being used at that booth as no books were for sale at that booth, nor had permission been requested or obtained for use of the video camera at that the Jude 3 Missions booth. Chris Breyer, the person in charge of the Jude 3 Missions booth, responded to Ms. Dahl, Detective Wemer, and the Whittakers that there was no video camera at this booth, but there was one at the Market Place booth rented by Mr. Van Gorden because books had been stolen.

19. Two of these individuals, John Whittaker and Sherri Whittaker, who were unknown to the Van Gordens at that time, then went to the “Kurt Van Gorden author/speaker” booth in the Market Place where the books were being offered for sale. Mr. Whittaker placed his hand over the lens of the video camera from the adjacent booth and ordered Mr. Van Gorden to shut it off, while refusing to identify himself.

20. Mr. Van Gorden asked him for his name and what he was doing but he would not initially identify himself or answer any questions.

21. As Mr. Whittaker continued his requests, Cindy Van Gorden took Mr. Whittaker’s photograph with a 35 mm camera to document his actions. He was still unidentified and was placing his hand over their equipment and interfering with their normal course of business. [As a contributor to the newspaper, Cindy Van Gorden often takes photo-journalistic pictures of stories in action].

22. At that point, Sherri Whittaker, who appeared to act at the behest, acquiescence, or approval of Mr. Whittaker, shoved the camera into Cindy Van Gorden’s face. Then John Whittaker grabbed Cindy Van Gorden’s hands and camera attempting to seize the same. After this scuffle, Mr. Van Gorden stepped between them demanding an explanation, and demanding that Mr. Whittaker identify himself, which he did.

23. Mr. Van Gorden told his wife to leave the Fair with the camera and film because Mr. Whittaker continued to harass them. Cindy Van Gorden placed the camera in her shirt and proceeded towards the exit.

24. An unidentified security guard, apparently employed by the Fair, met Cindy Van Gorden at the door about 150 feet from the booth and reached for her shirt, grabbing her breast. She pulled free and he grabbed her wrist. She broke free and attempted to come back to the booth. She was calling to her husband Kurt Van Gorden to send a man with her.

25. As she attempted to exit a second time with a male co-worker, additional Fair security guards surrounded her, grabbing at her and physically detaining her against her will.

26. Cindy Van Gorden was then assaulted by several Fair security guards including ones named John Richard Evans, Jesse Powell, and Jackie Powell. During the assault Chris Breyer came to Cindy Van Gorden’s aid, and he too was assaulted by an officer, who pushed him in the chest.

27. Their assaultive conduct involved picking Cindy Van Gorden up and slamming her back down on to the asphalt feet first, apparently trying to jar loose what they thought was a video tape. They began reaching into her shirt attempting to grab the camera,which they thought was a videotape, grabbing her breasts instead. Cindy Van Gorden was doubled over in pain on the asphalt, so they jerked her up by the hair. The slamming of Cindy Van Gorden on the pavement and then jerking her up by the hair was repeated a second time

28. A Salt Lake City Police Officer, who later identified himself as Detective Frank Wemer, approached Cindy Van Gorden from behind without identifying himself as a police officer or informing her she was under arrest. He seized her right arm and twisted it behind her back, holding it there while security officers continued to grope for the camera in her shirt, and handcuffed her without identifying himself as an officer or informing she was being arrested. When she was able to turn around and see who was restraining her, she discovered that it was a police officer.

29. Cindy Van Gorden was arrested for “interfering with an investigation” although when later questioned by Mr. Van Gorden, Detective Wemer could not specify what investigation she had interfered with.

30. Cindy Van Gorden was taken to a police trailer and kept in handcuffs for approximately 50 minutes. Cindy Van Gorden sustained two dislocated ribs and other injuries to her neck and back and has required medical care for her injuries. She continues to suffer pain as a result of her injuries. Chris Breyer, Kurt Van Gorden, and John Van Gorden (the Van Gorden’s son) accompanied officer Wemer enroute to the police trailer. Richard Evans followed behind Mr. Breyer and hit him in the back.

31. After the seizure of Cindy Van Gorden, Detective Steven Smith and Sgt. Chuck, Gilbert of the Salt Lake City Police Department insisted upon standing immediately in front of the “Rev. Kurt Van Gorden” booth, blocking it even after they admitted to Mr. Van Gorden that their police business was finished.

32. Sgt. Gilbert picked up one of Mr. Van Gorden’s books on display, and proceeded to question Mr. Van Gorden as to the purpose of his books and of the booth. He refused to leave for some period of time and when he did leave, he walked off with one of the books without paying for it. Mr. Van Gorden’s co-worker, Chris Breyer, called Sgt. Gilbert back to either return the book or pay for it.

33. Detective Smith was present and did not intervene during Sgt. Gilbert’s harassment, but contributed to the same.

34. When these officers did leave, Detective Smith took Mr. Van Gorden’s driver’s license with him, which he had requested earlier. Mr. Breyer made Mr. Van Gorden aware that his driver’s license had been kept by the officers, so they sought Detective Smith out on the fairgrounds and demanded its return.

35. Later that evening, the head of the Fairpark’s security, Mr. Steve Hutto, accosted Mr. Van Gorden. When this was reported to Lieutenant Scott Folsom of the Salt Lake City Police Department, who was on the scene, he refused to take a report on it although other eyewitnesses confirmed Mr. Van Gorden’s complaint to Lieutenant Folsom.

36. After Mr. Breyer, the Van Gordens, and their mission workers had closed down both booths for the evening, at approximately 11:10 p.m., on Saturday, September 14, 1996, Mr. Whittaker was seen standing in front of the door with several security guards surrounding him in a semicircle. Mr. Van Gorden asked Mr. Whittaker if he had received his letter that he had delivered to the Fair office in response to Mr. Whittaker’s letter that was dropped off at the booth at approximately 4:30 p.m. Mr. Whittaker then began taunting Mr. Van Gorden.

37. At that time, and without provocation, an unknown security guard stepped up to Kurt Van Gorden and assaulted him by pushing his chest into Mr. Van Gorden’s. Chris Breyer was standing next to Mr. Van Gorden with a tape recorder in his shirt pocket. The security guard assaulted Mr. Breyer by grabbing his shirt and shutting off the tape recorder in his pocket.

38. When they stepped away, Mr. Breyer noticed a silver badge on the belt of this guard, which was partially covered by his shirt. Believing him to be a police officer, Chris Breyer and Kurt Van Gorden approached him asking him if he was a law officer and what his badge number was. He refused to tell them and his identification was not discovered for several minutes when Salt Lake City Police Lieutenant Scott Folsom identified him as Mr. Steve Hutto.

39. Mr. Whittaker demanded that Lieutenant Folsom escort the Jude 3 Mission workers from the fairground. Mr. Van Gorden and Mr. Breyer requested several times that Lieutenant Folsom take a police report on the incident as an assault, which he refused to do, even in the presence of eyewitnesses who confirmed the incident. Both booths were closed by Mr. Whittaker and Donna Dahl the following morning, but the Van Gorden’s and Jude 3 Mission were permitted to retrieve their possessions before the opening of the fair.

40. Mr. Van Gorden submitted a fee and request for an application for a booth for 1997. But it became evident, after several phone calls and letters that he would not be given assurances of being fairly treated. He also received a harassing phone call on March 3, 1997 from Mr. Whittaker. Mr. Van Gorden finally gave up his pursuit of a booth for 1997 and asked for his fee to be refunded.

First Cause of Action (Violation of U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause)

41. The defendant subdivisions of the State of Utah were all created by the State of Utah, or are authorized to act by the State of Utah on its behalf. The defendants sued in their official and individual capacities are employed by the defendant subdivisions of the State of Utah.

42. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits the Defendants from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

43. The Defendants Utah State Fair, Salt Lake City Police Department, City of Salt Lake City, Donna Dahl, John Whittaker, Sheri Whittaker, Steven Smith, and Chuck Gilbert’s actions violated this prohibition in that their actions prevented the Plaintiffs from a free exercise of their religion and religious rights.

Second Cause Of Action (Violation of U.S. Constitution’s Freedom of Speech Clause)

44. The Defendant subdivisions of the state of Utah were all created by the State of Utah, or are authorized to act by the State of Utah on its behalf. The defendants sued in their official and individual capacities are employed by the defendant subdivisions of the State of Utah.

45. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits the Defendants from abridging the Plaintiffs freedom of speech.

46. The Defendants Utah State Fair, Salt Lake City Police Department, City of Salt Lake City, Donna Dahl, John Whittaker, Sheri Whittaker, Steven Smith, and Chuck Gilbert’s actions violated this prohibition in that their actions abraded the Plaintiff s right to freedom of speech.

Third Cause of Action (Violation of U.S. Constitution’s Freedom of the Press Clause)

47. The Defendant subdivisions of the State of Utah were all created by the State of Utah, or are authorized to act by the State of Utah on its behalf. The defendants sued in their official and individual capacities are employed by the defendant subdivisions of the State of Utah.

48. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits the Defendants from abridging the Plaintiffs rights to the freedom of the press.

49. The Defendants Utah State Fair, Salt Lake City Police Department, City of Salt Lake City, Donna Dahl, John Whittaker, Sheri Whittaker, Steven Smith, and Chuck Gilbert’s actions violated this prohibition in that their actions abridged the Plaintiff s right to freedom of the press.

Fourth Cause of Action (Violation U.S. Constitution’s
Unreasonable Search and Seizure Clause)

50. The Defendant subdivisions of the State of Utah were all created by the State of Utah, or are authorized to act by the State of Utah on its behalf. The defendants sued in their official and individual capacities are employed by the defendant subdivisions of the State of Utah.

51. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits the Defendants from engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures.

52. The Defendants Utah State Fair, John Richard Evans, Jesse Powell, Jackie Powell, Salt Lake City Police Department, City of Salt Lake City, and Frank Wemer’s actions violated this prohibition in that their actions constituted an unreasonable search and seizure.

Fifth Cause of Action (Violation of 42 USC Sections 1983 and 1988)

53. All Defendants acted under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, or usage of the State of Utah or of the City of Salt Lake City in that that is where they purportedly drew their authority to act as described in this complaint.

54. All Defendants subjected to the Plaintiffs, or caused the Plaintiffs to be subjected to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured to them under Constitution and law of the United States.

55. Said deprivations caused injury to the Plaintiffs.

56. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States.

57. Consequently, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, all Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for injuries caused, and are liable for attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

Sixth Cause of Action (Assault)

58. Defendants Utah State Fair, John Richard Evans, Jesse Powell, Jackie Powell, Sheri Whittaker, John Whittaker, Salt Lake City Police Department, City of Salt Lake City, Frank Wemer and John Does 1-10 acted intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with respect to Plaintiff Cindy Van Gorden. John Evans and Steve Hutto and defendants John Does 1-10 acted intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with respect to Plaintiff Chris Breyer. Steve Hutto acted intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with respect to Plaintiff Kurt Van Gorden.

59. As a result, the Plaintiffs Cindy Van Gorden, Kurt Van Gorden, and Chris Breyer were put in imminent apprehension of contact and/or harm.

60. The Plaintiffs, Cindy Van Gorden, Kurt Van Gorden, and Chris Breyer suffered injuries proximately caused by the named Defendants’ actions.

Seventh Cause of Action (False Imprisonment)

61. Defendants Utah State Fair, John Richard Evans, Jesse Powell, Jackie Powell, Salt Lake City Police Department, City of Salt Lake City, and Frank- Wemer acted intending to confine or restrain Plaintiff Cindy Van Gorden.

62. These Defendants’ actions resulted in the confinement or restrain of the Plaintiff.

63. The Plaintiff was conscious of the confinement or restrain or was harmed by it.

64. These Defendants acted without having reasonable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff committed a criminal offense.

Punitive Damages

65. The conduct of all Defendants was willful and malicious, or done in knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

1. For an injunction requiring granting of the two booths at the Utah State Fair.

2. Compensatory damages.

3. Punitive damages.

4. Attorney’s fees.

I will give how it was resolved after someone posts so not to violate the back to back posting rule.

Sheepdog
July 25th 2003, 02:51 AM
heh. there are times that i don't want to admit it, but i am really glad we don't have a state religion. pfft, and they often complain about us being "antimormons."

i wanna see how this case turned out.

Jacob
July 25th 2003, 04:01 PM
Today @ 01:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=157790#post157790)
Sheepdog:

heh. there are times that i don't want to admit it, but i am really glad we don't have a state religion. pfft, and they often complain about us being "antimormons."

i wanna see how this case turned out.

Don't want to admit it???

Why?

Jacob

Sheepdog
July 27th 2003, 03:31 AM
07-25-2003 @ 04:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=158253#post158253)
Jacob:
Don't want to admit it???

Why?

basically because i know there are a lot of folks (often labelled fundies, though not unjustly so) who would hoot and holler over a Christian saying such. also, on the opposite end i know some will take my position way beyond my intentions and milk it for what its worth to them.

Bloodnut
December 18th 2003, 10:12 AM
For those who don't know, Kurt Van Gorden has a history of making frivilous lawsuits that have no case. His strive for a "quick buck" in the court room reflects the same desire of his mentor, Walter Martin, who also tried suing the LDS Church for millions.

But, fortunately there is a God. Kurt has withdrawn his lawsuit because the his case is so untenable. Even worse for him, and a great service to the rest of the world, it was dismissed with prejudice, meaning he will NEVER be allowed to sue the Church for the same stupid reasons EVER again. Kurt was forced to pay some of the attorney fees for the Church as well.

This is a great victory for the LDS Church. It should give you some idea just how worthless these rants are against it. It might sound like a open and shut argument against the LDS faith in forums like these, but in the real world, when all the facts are laid out, justice is served.

Van Gorden is a loser if there ever was such a thing. He is always trying to sue so many LDS friends I know for some of the dumbest things. Heck, he is even trying to sue anti-Mormon Richard Abanes for plagarizing some of his stuff in his recent book.

Leroy
December 18th 2003, 06:58 PM
Bloodnut;
For those who don't know, Kurt Van Gorden has a history of making frivilous lawsuits that have no case. His strive for a "quick buck" in the court room reflects the same desire of his mentor, Walter Martin, who also tried suing the LDS Church for millions.

Bloodnut, I happen to know Kurt, I found him to be a true Man of God, He is a missionary that has dedicated his life to preaching the Gospel to Mormons showing them the truth and revealing to others the falsehoods of Mormonism. :solly:

Let me ask you a question, can and will you back up your statement as to Kurt making frivolous lawsuits that have no case? :shifty:

Striving for a “quick buck” as you claim both Kurt and Walter Martin have done, sounds more to me like a “Circumstantial Ad Hominem”, a very common fallacy invoked by people that cannot refute the facts and choose to try and demean the people that present the facts. :noid:

Bloodnut;

But, fortunately there is a God. Kurt has withdrawn his lawsuit because the his case is so untenable. Even worse for him, and a great service to the rest of the world, it was dismissed with prejudice, meaning he will NEVER be allowed to sue the Church for the same stupid reasons EVER again. Kurt was forced to pay some of the attorney fees for the Church as well.

If this is just your hope, or even a guess, that’s fine state it as such, but if you have proof of this I think you need to post it or a link to it.:deal:


Bloodnut;

This is a great victory for the LDS Church. It should give you some idea just how worthless these rants are against it. It might sound like a open and shut argument against the LDS faith in forums like these, but in the real world, when all the facts are laid out, justice is served.

Is it a victory? I would like to see the evidence? :huh:

Bloodnut;
Van Gorden is a loser if there ever was such a thing. He is always trying to sue so many LDS friends I know for some of the dumbest things. Heck, he is even trying to sue anti-Mormon Richard Abanes for plagarizing some of his stuff in his recent book.

If you think he is a loser, that’s your opinion, if you want people to take your statement with any credibility, why don’t you bring some evidence to the table, I think anybody would deserve that. Making a blanket statement as this, without supporting evidence is just plan ol’ mean spirited. :whack:


Leroy

Bloodnut
December 19th 2003, 12:42 AM
== Bloodnut, I happen to know Kurt, I found him to be a true Man of God,

Oh yes, I'm sure you do.

== He is a missionary that has dedicated his life to preaching the Gospel to Mormons showing them the truth and revealing to others the falsehoods of Mormonism

He is a tool of Satan who is more interested in hootin and hollerin in front of the LDS temples, ruining private weddings, encouraging some of the most resentful "Christian" acts towards Mormons, and to add further insult to injury, he wants to get paid in the process with a heafty lawsuit.

== Let me ask you a question, can and will you back up your statement as to Kurt making frivolous lawsuits that have no case?

The fact that his endless list of lawsuits always get thrown out of court is evidence enough.

== Striving for a “quick buck” as you claim both Kurt and Walter Martin have done, sounds more to me like a “Circumstantial Ad Hominem”, a very common fallacy invoked by people that cannot refute the facts and choose to try and demean the people that present the facts.

But this IS the fact! Whining about ad hominem is a fallacy in itself. Ad hominem is a fallacy only when it intends to change the subject. but this IS the subject.

Martin and Gorden have been refuted on several occasions on various issues. Maybe you should hold your nose, squint your eyes, and take a peek out into the real world; outside anti-Mormon forums where the babbling "know-nothings" thrive off each other's bloviation and arrogance, and see what has actually been said by LDS apologists. In my opinion they have proven beyond all doubt what spirit these two men serve.

Walter Martin was Kurt's mentor, and Walter Martin tried suing the LDS Church for millions on one occasion, just because a Mormon spoke up during one of his sermons and proved him to be a liar - he invented a page in the Journal of Discourses. http://www.angelfire.com/ga/kevgram3/wally.html

But oh how quickly this Evangelical embarassment is forgotten.

Kurt is walking in Martin's footsteps. I joined an LDS e-list about 8 years ago and Kurt was always a subject of attention every year because he was always trying to sue someone on the list or someone they knew. A friend of mine knows him personally - Bob Durocher. He told me the whole story about how Kurt and his wife jumped on his case and accused him of releasing a draft of Kurt's book before it was published. Bob had no idea what they were babbling about and was highly offened at their accusations. "It is time to come clean Bob" is what they said to him condescendingly. This is a man of God? Yeah, right.

His draft got in the hands of some FARMS scholars, and they reviewed it, making Kurt look like a fool in the process. So what did Kurt do? What he does best. He called his lawyer and filed a lawsuit that involved more than a dozen people and took many years before it came to a close. Wasting everyone's time as usual.

And now the recent lawsuit is just another ornament to Kurt's legacy. It was pitiful. He wanted his national spotlight and now he has it. Now he wants to hide in the shadows and start suing those on his own side.

== If you think he is a loser, that’s your opinion, if you want people to take your statement with any credibility, why don’t you bring some evidence to the table, I think anybody would deserve that. Making a blanket statement as this, without supporting evidence is just plan ol’ mean spirited.

Since when on earth is ANYONE in this forum concerned with credibility? No matter what I say or what evidence I provide, you will brush it aside as usual. But I know what I'm talking about because I know those who were involved in it. Kurt knows I am telling the truth also. I'm not here to make you believe me because I'm not so naive as to think I can. This corner of the web is so anti-Mormon you can't even stand one pro or even neutral Mormon comment without bringing in the guns. Gotta shoot every little thing down.

I'm just stating the facts as they happened.

You can't impress minds that are already made up.

You guys were so interested in this lawsuit until you realized it didn't go your way. So the topic was abandoned. Funny how that works.

Bloodnut
December 19th 2003, 05:06 PM
On June 4, 1974, at Westminister Presbyterian Church in Orange County California, Walter Martin was lecturing during a public sermon about Mormonism. A Mormon who was in the crowd at the time, Bruce Johnson, heard Martin misquote from a page in the Journals and Discourses which did not exist. This is the amazing dialogue which took place:

Johnson: Lets go on with the documentation, then to the doctrine, so we know exactly where we're getting to. One further example then of the fraud you present- you said tonight, Journal of Discourses, Volume four, page 300, let me make this accurate so I know, page 385. I have, and then you proceed to quote. I have with me Journal of Discourses, volume four, and I would defy anyone, would you please open and tell me page 385...

Martin: Now wait a minute. Before.....

Johnson: Right at the very last.......

Martin: Wait a minute, wait...

Johnson: Sir, if you represent something and you say "I quote", and you give a reference and it's not there, you're a fraud!

Martin: Just a second, just a second...

Johnson: What page? It does'nt have it. it goes to page 376.

Martin: Just a second, just a second...

Johnson: I am listening.

Martin: First of all, I'm supposed to be guilty of fraud right?

Johnson: Yes sir! Lawyers checked your references, made sure they are accurate. We checked the source.

Martin: Fine. We can settle the whole subject simply. We'll let you prove that I am guilty of fraud, Okay?

Johnson: Misrepresenting grossly.

Martin: Anything else you want to charge me with? Just say it, thats all.

Johnson: That should do just fine. But the fact that you misrepresent so badly.

Martin: Fraud, deception, misrepresentation of doctrine?

Johnson: Of doctrine!

Martin: And out-of-context quotations?

Johnson: And out-of-context quotations!

Martin: Okay well, we'll give you an ample chance to do it, but we are not going to do it here. You know where we're going to do it?

Johnson: Let me know when and where.

Martin: In a court where you can prove it. And you...

Johnson: I think youre afraid to do it right here before the very people to whom you represent yourself as an authority.

Martin: Right. And I intend to give you a rare opportunity. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to let you be the first Mormon in the State of California to go onto a witness stand and prove it. Now, you've got your chance, and your in front of a whole lot of witnesses and it's on tape. Now, you are going to apologize to me before we're finished or you're going to go into a court room and I'm going to give you the chance to prove it because I didn't spend 25 years of my life to have you stand up and...

Johnson: You've spent 25 years of your life decieving!

Martin: All right, you've got your chance, I've got your manuscript and your address, your name, everything, and lots of witnesses. You're gonna have your chance. I welcome this...

Johnson: You are afraid to do it right here before this audience tonight.

Martin: I welcome the opportunity and I assure you you're gonna get your chance. Now that, that will settle the whole question. If you're right and I am wrong, you've ruined me. If I am right and you are wrong, the Mormon Church in California is going to be terribly embarrassed.

On May 21, 1975, Walter Martin filed a complaint against Bruce Johnson and the Mormon Church for damagaes, injurious falsehoods, emotional distress, and interference. In the Superior Court, Orange County, California, Case #229099, Martin asked for $1,000,000 general damages, $10,000,000 punitive damages, and attorneys fees.

In the SWORN Declaration of Walter Martin, April 1977, paragraphs 6, 7, and 8, he states:


"These statements that I am accused of are untrue and this continuing harrassment by the Mormon Church is grievously affecting me. By accusing me of being a liar, and guilt of misrepresentation, deception, fraud, lust(??), and character assassination in my presentation of what the Mormon prophets said, I have been damaged in my occupation and profession as an author and lecturer on comparative religions....."
How Mr. Martin could insinuate that he was accused of "Lust" is beyond me, but it carried the effect he wanted and this is very typical of how he exaggerates in his sermons to paint a picture to his liking. Walter Martin listed the following disorders in 3.4 Answers to Interrogatory No. 12 as being direct result of the "verbal abuse" by Bruse Johnson:


Exposure to hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame, and mortification

Severe amotional anguish

mental anguish

tension

turmoil

loss of sleep

fright

nervousness

grief

anxiety

worry

humiliation

indignity

embarassment

ulcer symptoms in the stomach

vomiting blood

irritability of the duodenal bulb

aggravation of pre-existing diabetes of the pancreas

chest pain

certical stress syndrome in the neck and back

neural muscular irritation of the back and specific vertebrate

vertebrate muscular spasms of the upper, lower, and middle back...

All of this just because a Mormon challenged him in public? Good grief! And just what exactly was ex-momo ranting about on "freedom of speech"?

To make a long story short, Martin's case was thrown out. It was a joke! He appealed and it was again rejected at first glance by three judges. Martin maintained after it was dismissed, that it was still being handled by the courts, as if he ever had a case to begin with. He simply panicked when Bruce Johnson called him on his non-existent source and instead of just saying, "hey the page is not there I must have made a mistake," or challeng Mr. Johnson's supposedly false allegations, he instead used intimidation and threats of a lawsuit to persuade Mr. Johnson to back off.


Some "men of God" huh?

Trout
December 19th 2003, 05:17 PM
BLOODNUT
He is a tool of Satan who is more interested in hootin and hollerin in front of the LDS temples, ruining private weddings, encouraging some of the most resentful "Christian" acts towards Mormons, and to add further insult to injury, he wants to get paid in the process with a heafty lawsuit.


What reason do you have in saying that Blood?

Leroy
December 19th 2003, 07:01 PM
Bloodnut,

Welcome to the tweb, there are some features in the
VB Code (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/view.php?pg=vbcodereplacements) that will help you to make your posts more readable.:yes:


Bloodnut
He is a tool of Satan who is more interested in hootin and hollerin in front of the LDS temples, ruining private weddings, encouraging some of the most resentful "Christian" acts towards Mormons, and to add further insult to injury, he wants to get paid in the process with a heafty lawsuit.

You just keep adding to the list of unsupported statements, what private weddings did he ruin, Why don’t you provide some supporting evidence for this “endless list of lawsuits” you claim, And the fact that they always get thrown out of court? :whistle:


Van Gorden v. Utah State Fair

Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion

ACLUutah.org (http://www.acluutah.org/resolutions.htm#vangorden)

In 1996, after years of being arbitrarily excluded from the Utah State Fair because fair patrons complained about the content of their religious message, Kurt and Cindy Van Gorden were allowed to set up a booth to display the religious books they publish. Unbeknownst to them, however, their contract contained restrictions not imposed on other vendors. Fair officials then used those restrictions as a pretext for shutting down the Van Gordens when fair patrons once again objected to their message. They were accosted by fair officials and several officers from the Salt Lake City Police Department, and forcibly evicted. In September 1998, the ACLU of Utah and cooperating attorney Nathan Hult filed a lawsuit against fair officials and individual police officers for their unconstitutional and illegal actions. In November 2001, the ACLU was able to negotiate an amicable settlement that resulted in full compensation to the Van Gordens and a promise that they will be invited back to the Utah State Fair on the same terms and conditions as all other vendors.

The Case posted at the beginning of this thread was not thrown out as you stated;:shifty:


Bloodnut
But, fortunately there is a God. Kurt has withdrawn his lawsuit because the his case is so untenable. Even worse for him, and a great service to the rest of the world, it was dismissed with prejudice, meaning he will NEVER be allowed to sue the Church for the same stupid reasons EVER again. Kurt was forced to pay some of the attorney fees for the Church as well.

In fact Van Gorden won, and with his win, so did all Americans because our right to free speech was victorious. You can thank Kurt for that next time you see him, and apologize for the lies you been spreading.:bow:


Bloodnut

But this IS the fact! Whining about ad hominem is a fallacy in itself. Ad hominem is a fallacy only when it intends to change the subject. but this IS the subject.

But as proved, this is not a fact as my above supporting document proves! :deal:

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). :doh:

You are trying to discredit the entire lawsuit as a striving for a quick buck, when in fact the judicial government ruled that his rights were violated.

Bloodnut
Martin and Gorden have been refuted on several occasions on various issues. Maybe you should hold your nose, squint your eyes, and take a peek out into the real world; outside anti-Mormon forums where the babbling "know-nothings" thrive off each other's bloviation and arrogance, and see what has actually been said by LDS apologists. In my opinion they have proven beyond all doubt what spirit these two men serve.

Walter Martin was Kurt's mentor, and Walter Martin tried suing the LDS Church for millions on one occasion, just because a Mormon spoke up during one of his sermons and proved him to be a liar - he invented a page in the Journal of Discourses. http://www.angelfire.com/ga/kevgram3/wally.html

But oh how quickly this Evangelical embarassment is forgotten.

If you read the article you will see that the case was dropped by the courts because Walter Martin “would be considered a public figure and fair game for Johnson’s criticism”-Justic F. Douglas:doh:


Bloodnut
Kurt is walking in Martin's footsteps. I joined an LDS e-list about 8 years ago and Kurt was always a subject of attention every year because he was always trying to sue someone on the list or someone they knew. A friend of mine knows him personally - Bob Durocher. He told me the whole story about how Kurt and his wife jumped on his case and accused him of releasing a draft of Kurt's book before it was published. Bob had no idea what they were babbling about and was highly offened at their accusations. "It is time to come clean Bob" is what they said to him condescendingly. This is a man of God? Yeah, right.


Did Bob do that?:huh:


Bloodnut
His draft got in the hands of some FARMS scholars, and they reviewed it, making Kurt look like a fool in the process. So what did Kurt do? What he does best. He called his lawyer and filed a lawsuit that involved more than a dozen people and took many years before it came to a close. Wasting everyone's time as usual.


Why don’t you post a link to the FARMS review?:huh:


Bloodnut
Since when on earth is ANYONE in this forum concerned with credibility? No matter what I say or what evidence I provide, you will brush it aside as usual. But I know what I'm talking about because I know those who were involved in it. Kurt knows I am telling the truth also. I'm not here to make you believe me because I'm not so naive as to think I can. This corner of the web is so anti-Mormon you can't even stand one pro or even neutral Mormon comment without bringing in the guns. Gotta shoot every little thing down.


Its becoming obvious to me that you, for one, are not concerned with credibility, but most of the other people on the tweb are. You have already been caught in one lie, and with your reluctance to provide supporting evidence for your other statements you fall into serious question. :hrm:


What I have found across the tweb board is that if you want to post your view on something, you better be ready to back it up with truth, a viable reason you believe it, and make a defense for what you state. If you think that’s shooting everything down, your right, the lies and mis-informed do get shot down, if you have came here to learn and expand your base of knowledge it’s a very good place.:yipee:


Bloodnut
I'm just stating the facts as they happened.

You are not stating facts are you. Your flying of the handle with your misinformed mind, trying to lambaste people claiming to do the very same things I have caught you doing.


Bloodnut
You can't impress minds that are already made up.

You guys were so interested in this lawsuit until you realized it didn't go your way. So the topic was abandoned. Funny how that works.


Has this impressed your mind, or is it already made up? It is funny how that works! :haha:

Leroy

Undomiel
December 19th 2003, 07:43 PM
Bloodnut,

Are you a mormon?

Leroy
December 19th 2003, 08:37 PM
FYI Here are two book reviews from FARMS, are these the Van Gorden book critiques mentioned?

Mormonism sequence #9 (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=207)



Mormonism sequence #17 (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=272)

I would have to say coming from the source, Foundation For Ancient Research And Mormon Studies you could expect nothing less then a very critical review.

Another review:
Reviewer: Daniel Mark Donovan from Lansing, IL USA
“Perhaps the best feature of this book is the fact that it is structured as one large outline. This makes the material extremely easy to follow. It also allows for individual subjects to be accessed easily. For example, if one is looking for information on "The Nature of God" (an important topic when dealing with the LDS), they will have little trouble finding the information because the book has a format that is user-friendly.
If you enjoy "doing" counter-cult apologetics, I cannot think of any resource I would give a higher recommendation to than this one. It has the three key features everyone should look for...1) an easy to follow format; 2) an objective presentation of the particular false teaching being discussed; and 3) a solid, Biblically-based refutation that can be appreciated by the Pastor, as well as the layman.”




Leroy

Bloodnut
December 20th 2003, 02:54 AM
== You just keep adding to the list of unsupported statements, what private weddings did he ruin, Why don’t you provide some supporting evidence for this “endless list of lawsuits” you claim, And the fact that they always get thrown out of court?

These are facts whether you choose to believe them or not. Kurt has been an ongoing mole on the butt of Mormonism, always lawsuit baiting trying to get a quick buck. Sure, you found one lawsuit where it wasn't thrown out, and all of the sudden he is totally vindicated and I am the "liar" huh? Ever hear of hyperbole? This is the only thing you've "caught" me doing. So follow the examples laid out by your so called "man of God" and sue me.

So it wasn't thrown out. So not exactly 100% of every lawsuit he has filed has been "thrown out." OK, so why don't we make this easier and list the ones he actually WON and those he lost and those he settled out of court? Do you keep up with all his lawsuit frenzies? I don't. I just hear about them and then check up on the results in the paper. The fact that he is CONSTANTLY SUING SOMEBODY should mean something right? I mean this just isn't normal. Now he is suing Richard Abanes and drawing criticial fire from other Evangelicals like Rob Bowman who think enough is enough.

But with the State Fair issue he settled out of court because he had no case - police depts always tend to settle out of court anyway. He was arrested for having a video camera at his booth, and then his wife threw a hissy fit alleging to have been "sexually assaulted" because she tried hid a camera up her skirt while the guard was trying to take it from her. Yeah, like that stage wasn't planned. What a bunch of idiots.

This past April he tried to make a quick million ...AGAIN.

"California resident Kurt Van Gorden filed a lawsuit Friday against the LDS Church, Salt Lake City, Mayor Rocky Anderson, former Mayor Deedee Corradini and others based on his arrest for leafletting on the Main Street Plaza last April during the church's general conference.Van Gorden demanded in U.S. District Court that there be a jury trial. He believes he is entitled to $1 million." http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00002970.html

== In fact Van Gorden won, and with his win, so did all Americans because our right to free speech was victorious. You can thank Kurt for that next time you see him, and apologize for the lies you been spreading.

Uh, at best you've only named one, which is based in hyperbole. Lies is plural, therefore you are a LIAR for accusing me of telling LIES plural. Well, you wanted to split hairs. Now you should apologize for lying about me.

== But as proved, this is not a fact as my above supporting document proves!

What? All you have proven is that there is one lonely lawsuit that Kurt didn't get thrown out. Wow. You've amazingly justified his legacy of worthelss lawsuits. Why? Well, he had ONE that didn't get thrown out of course. Makes sense to me.

Not.

== If you read the article you will see that the case was dropped by the courts because Walter Martin “would be considered a public figure and fair game for Johnson’s criticism”

So? This still means he had no case. Hello?

Even if he weren't a public figure, Martin would have to prove Johnson lied about him, which of course he didn't. The page didn't exist then and it doesn't exist now. Therefore Martin was lying through his teeth.

== Did Bob do that?

Of course not. Kurt is a hyper-kinetic petulant child, and his wife sounds pretty loopy.

== Why don’t you post a link to the FARMS review

I think the review was removed because Kurt pitched a fit over it. Though there have been other reviews of Kurt since.

Trout
December 20th 2003, 01:47 PM
Leroy,

Bloodnut is obviously in lock step with the LDS church and therefore unable to reason correctly. (Maybe he has water on the brain from all those proxy baptisms) More than likely he is rubbing his CTR (Censor Truth and Reason) ring as he attempts a response at the material you have posted which entirely proves him a hypocrite and a liar. (Which puts him in complete harmony with Joseph and Brigham)

It appears that in a battle of wits, Bloodnut comes to the table unarmed.

Leroy
December 20th 2003, 06:31 PM
Today @ 10:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349740#post349740)
troutk13:

Leroy,

Bloodnut is obviously in lock step with the LDS church and therefore unable to reason correctly. (Maybe he has water on the brain from all those proxy baptisms) More than likely he is rubbing his CTR (Censor Truth and Reason) ring as he attempts a response at the material you have posted which entirely proves him a hypocrite and a liar. (Which puts him in complete harmony with Joseph and Brigham)

It appears that in a battle of wits, Bloodnut comes to the table unarmed.

:rofl: :lmbo: :rofl: :rofl: :lmbo:

Well said Trout! I see he hasn't bothered to answer your post, maybe the question is to mind bending for him.

to many trips to the Chloroform Dome and there goes reason!

Leroy

Leroy
December 20th 2003, 06:53 PM
Yesterday @ 11:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349489#post349489)
Bloodnut:


Uh, at best you've only named one, which is based in hyperbole. Lies is plural, therefore you are a LIAR for accusing me of telling LIES plural. Well, you wanted to split hairs. Now you should apologize for lying about me.


:haha::haha::haha:
I caught you in 7 lies;

bloodnut;
Withdrew lawsuit

bloodnut;
Dismissed with predudice

bloodnut;
Kurt forced to pay attorney's fees for the church

bloodnut;
Great Victory for the LDS church

bloodnut;
ruining private weddings

bloodnut;
But this is a fact

bloodnut;
I'm just stating the facts as they happened

Cry me a river:bawl:
:haha: :haha:
:thumbd::thumbd:Bloodnuts credibility:thumbd::thumbd:


Leroy