Jump to content

Avatar4321

Contributor
  • Content Count

    6,116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Avatar4321


  1. On 8/17/2019 at 12:11 PM, rodheadlee said:

    My left shoulder has given up the ability to lift my arm. I think a one armed Carpenter/ captain of small sailboats is pretty useless. If you feel like saying prayers for me I will really appreciate it.

     

    Keeping you in my prayers Rod. Chronic pain can be the worst. When I started working at the Public Defenders office about six months in I started having incredible pains in all my joints. It was psoriatic arthritis. There were days I didn't want to go to work because just trying to walk was downright unbearable.

    Just remember D&C 121:7-8

    • Like 2

  2. 18 hours ago, boo said:

    I have 2 brief comments. He was not excommunicated for teaching false doctrine or "leading people astray". He was never accused of this until after he was excommunicated . Deseret Books use to carry his books .He was excommunicated because his SP through Elder Nelson demanded that he withdraw the book that he had under a publishing contract ( ie breach his contract with his publisher ) and cancel hid proposed series of talks ( which hadn't happened ). He told them he couldn't breach his book publishing deal and he refuse to recognize their right to control what he said and when. In particular since he says Christ had directed him to offer the 10 talks series which he characterized as a celebration of his 40 years in Mormonism. This wasn't about doctrine it was about control and the risk of exercising unrighteous dominion. May be you are ok with your ecclesiastical authority telling you when you can talk  ( even before he knows what you are going to say ) and commanding you to breach your legal contracts upon pain of excommunication but i am deeply troubled by the very idea of someone using his priesthood authority to control my thoughts and actions. So was Joseph . See D and C 122,122

    0

    He was told to stop publishing the book because it taught false doctrine. If it didnt no one would have cared. You cant claim false doctrine had nothing to do with it when that was the central issue with the book. 

    • Like 2

  3. On 8/5/2019 at 11:29 PM, smac97 said:

    Preliminary thoughts:

    1. The extensive references to the "Mormon Corporate Empire" are not going to go over well.  Federal judges like litigants to play it straight, particularly when they are represented by counsel.

    2. The factual allegations seem generally accurate until paragraph 37, which then veers into allegations about Church teachings which are "false."  The truth or falsity of religious doctrines is a question that is virtually never addressed by the civil courts.  Civil courts are simply not interested in being a forum for people to argue about religious claims.  It's called the "Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine."

    3. Paragraph 38 starts a long diatribe about the Correlation Committee and it's purported "censorship" proclivities.  Oh, brother.

    4. Paragraph 40 claims that members "are constantly reminded through the Empire’s {there's that word again!} various communication methods to avoid reading anything other than correlated material concerning Mormon history."  Well no, that's factually not correct.  But it's also irrelevant to the court.

    5. Paragraph 43 claims that "'Lying for the Lord' is a phrase that has been used by former CES employees to describe the attitude of some CES employee administrators whereby employee instructors of young students have been told by their superiors in CES management and even apostles in the Quorum, to avoid discussion of controversial topics, because some things which are true are not very useful."  This is dumb.

    6. Paragraph 44: "High-level employees in the CES have even suggested that disobedience to the edict to lie about Mormon history could result in the loss of an inferior’s employment."  Oh, brother.

    7. Paragraph 49 posits that this lawsuit is based generally on a theory of "fraud."  "GADDY brings this Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Complaint) against COP to obtain damages for herself and similarly situated persons injured by longstanding false statements of material fact and factual misrepresentations critical to the historical foundation of Mormonism. Said false statements and misrepresentations of historical fact have been and continue to constitute a fraudulent scheme perpetrated for generations by the COP, through its employees and agents upon unwitting Mormons, as well as potential converts to Mormonism."

    Well, good luck.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) requires that complaints predicated on fraud must be pleaded "with particularity."  So far I'm not seeing much in the way of particulars.

    8. Paragraph 56: "Mormonism considers itself Christian, though many of its doctrines are foreign to basic Christian beliefs."

    Oi!  The attorney who wrote this is seriously asking a federal judge to adjudicate what constitutes "basic Christian beliefs?"  

    9. Paragraph 62: "Mormonism’s foundational facts, as taught by the COP, are that after Jesus Christ was crucified, priesthood authority essential to the true gospel was taken from the Earth..."  The subsequent paragraphs go into the Church's narrative about Joseph Smith, the First Vision, the Angel Moroni, etc.  Again, the attorney who wrote this is seriously asking a federal judge to render factual findings about Joseph Smith's theophanies in the early 19th century?

    10. Things get pretty stupid in paragraph 65: "Neither Mormon historical scholars nor other academics have found evidence to support the orthodox version of Smith’s first vision, i.e. the official version."

    What, pray tell, would the attorney expect the Church to produce as "evidence to support" the Church's narrative?  How would a judge in 2019 hope to be able to ascertain and evaluate competent, probative, and admissible "evidence" about whether Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, or not?

    Paragraph 69 brings it home: "COP has always known, or should have known, that its official version of the first vision is false."  Really?  How is it false?  What "evidence" is there for the judge to evaluate on this issue?  Is this "evidence" competent, probative, and admissible?  And even assuming it is, the underlying question (the veracity of Joseph Smith's claimed theophanies) are about as firmly rooted in the "Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine" as you can get.  The attorney may as well as the judge to adjudicate the visions of Paul, or the resurrection of Jesus.  Not gonna happen.

    The attorney harps on the Church defrauding members by withholding the 1832 account of the First Vision.  He's a bit late to the game here, as the "Gospel Topics" essay, "First Vision Accounts" specifically references that account, and provides a link to the complete text.

    11. Paragraph 74 is actually kind of funny: "Young Mormons like GADDY were never taught the truth, i.e., that Smith’s first vision was a typical Christian theophany, as indicated in his 1832 handwritten account where Smith sought the Lord, who appeared and granted him forgiveness for his sins."  Here the attorney is conceding the factual reality of the Lord appearing to Joseph Smith.  And yet he wants to claim that the Church committed "fraud" by not specifically using the 1832 account in missionary lessons and such.  Weird.

    12. Paragraph 78 quotes the older introduction in the Book of Mormon which describes the Lamanites as "the principal ancestors of the American Indians."  Again, the attorney is behind the times a bit here.

    13. Paragraph 81 alleges fraud based on paintings in visitors' centers.  No joke.

    14. Paragraph 84: "The truth is that the Book of Mormon was dictated by Smith while he peered at a stone in a hat. This manner of Book of Mormon manuscript creation may have been a divination or a reading from some document buried inside the hat, perhaps dictation by inspiration, or some combination thereof, but it does not support the claim that Smith translated (in any ordinary sense of the word) the Book of Mormon directly from gold plates..."

    Oh, boy.  This is *exactly* the sort of thing judges do not want to see in their courtroom.  The attorney starts this sentence with "The truth is..."  Well, the Court is not particularly interested in adjudicating whether religious claims are "true."  These are left to individuals to accept, or not.  The attorney, in order to prevail on a fraud claim, will need to marshal evidence as to whether God inspired Joseph Smith during the translation process.  Good luck with that.

    15. Paragraph 86 quotes a newspaper article from 1830 as competent evidence of how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.  Seriously.

    16. Paragraph 97 asserts that "The Book of Abraham, purportedly written by the Hebrew prophet and translated by Smith, has been proven a fraud by Egyptologists," and that "In 1966, the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated, and which was believed to have been lost in the Great Chicago Fire, was rediscovered."  Again, the attorney is behind the times.  

    17. Paragraphs 102-121 have a laundry list of "misrepresentations."  Perhaps culled from the CES Letter?  Pretty lazy writing here.

    18. Subsequent paragraphs go through the personal life of the named plaintiff.  Lots of emotional rhetoric.  Poor form for an experienced attorney.

    19. The causes of action cited are:

    • "Common Law Fraud";
    • "Fraud in the Inducement to Enter into an Oral Contract";
    • "Breach of Equitably Imposed Fiduciary Duties";
    • "Fraudulent Concealment";
    • "Civil RICO"; and
    • "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress."

    20. The attorney, Kay Burningham, is the author of "An American Fraud: One Lawyer's Case Against Mormonism."  So she has an axe to grind.

    I think the Church's attorneys will not spend much (if any) time on the Complaint's structural defects (failure to properly plead fraud-based allegations), and will instead file a Motion to Dismiss based on the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.  And I think such a motion will be granted.

    I sure hope the attorney did not charge her client for preparing this complaint, because A) it looks like it is the result of considerable time and effort, and B) it is going to fail to get out of the gate.

    Thanks,

    -Smac

    have to laugh at conceding to the factual reality of the first vision


  4. 23 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

     

    I'm not sure I follow.  President McKay didn't need the support of the Twelve to seek or to receive the will of the Lord with respect to lifting the ban.  He may have needed the support of the Twelve to implement any change, but he certainly didn't need it to inquire about the Lord's will concerning any change.  And before the receipt of the revelation lifting the ban, President Kimball "didn't have the support of the Twelve," either--at least, not unanimously.  Otherwise, why would Elder McConkie have needed to deliver his well-known "Forget everything that I have said ..." comment?  And if memory serves, all of the Twelve weren't present when President Kimball announced that he had received revelation on the matter.  An absent member of the Twelve (I forget who it was at the moment, and I believe it was someone who had opposed ending the ban previously), when contacted later and advised what had transpired in that meeting said, "I'll go with the brethren on this."

    Agreed. If McKay received a revelation in highly skeptical thst the twelve wouldn't whole heartedly endorse and support it

    • Like 1

  5. On 7/19/2019 at 2:56 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

    In 1978 I was two years off my mission and enrolled at BYU as a journalism student. The general reaction among the membership of the Church was not nearly as blasé as you seem to think it was. To us, it was an event of epic proportions like the moon landing of 1969 or the JFK assassination of 1963. We remember precisely where we were and what we were doing when we heard the news. Moreover, there was a general euphoria that lasted for days and weeks afterward. 

    If you’ve ever read Dallin H. Oaks’s account of his reaction when he heard the news, you can a flavor of how the vast majority of the membership felt. He was BYU president then. As I mentioned, I was a student on campus then, and I’m telling you his sentiment was typical. 

    Hardly surprising that this was the reaction. The Saints rejoice taking the Gospel to more people. We always have

    • Like 1

  6. 3 hours ago, bluebell said:

    Moses teaches the same thing in Numbers 29:11 where he says that he wishes that all of the Lord's people were prophets.  The difference between what Moses was saying and Denver is that though we can all be prophets, we cannot all have authority to lead God's church.  

    Which is what Joseph taught us and am the prophets since.

    • Like 1

  7. On 7/14/2019 at 4:01 PM, Exiled said:

    He got Pres. Nelson to join the revelation fray. Without Mr. Snuffer, one wonders if the revelation pen, that writes down inspired words for the faithful, would be a thing.  Competition makes one do things that one might not do otherwise.

    President Nelson has been talking about revelation since he was called as an Apostle. Was Mr. Snuffer talking about revelation before 1985?

    • Like 1

  8. On 7/13/2019 at 4:10 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

     

    I've always believed "God can talk to [me], too."  I probably differ with Mr. Snuffer on the necessity of having keys to lead and to receive revelation for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a whole, and/or on whether those purporting to have keys and to receive such revelation today went off the rails at some point.  But if the centerpoint of his argument is that "God can talk to [me], too," I'm not sure whether his argument was worth getting crossways with the Church of Jesus Christ or getting excommunicated.

    Yeah it's always been a strange argument to me. The whole restoration was about teaching that God talks to man and we should seek revelation. So a guy coming along saying "God can talk to you too!" In an attempt to lead us astray from a Church that already teaches that didn't make much sense.

    • Like 1

  9. 22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

    I don’t see a disconnect. I was probably out around when you were and the soft invitation for baptism is in the First Discussion and the stronger one in the Second. I have no idea where it is now. I have seen the effect of the opposite though. I went out with the missionaries once to a long time investigator I had befriended at Church and he seemed to be ready in every way. I asked him what was holding him back from being baptized and his response was no one had asked him yet.

    I did not exert a lot of pressure when I was out. I did invite people but only because they were feeling the Spirit. Then again I was a very mediocre missionary. 

    I think you misunderstand and that Elder Ballard is wanting to stop The practice of “baseball baptisms” and similar phenomena that proliferated in various missions where people were baptized with no spiritual witness. This also happened through salesmanship, crush on a missionary, attraction to the social aspects of the church, access to church welfare, all kinds of reasons that almost always lead to inactivity.

    The quick conversion after a spiritual witness is the norm and has been throughout history. The missionary discussions are slower then how we did it back in the 1800s. I doubt Elder Ballard was concerned about speed and does not even mention that, more concern that they got the gospel basics and requirements and felt the Holy Ghost.

    You were a better missionary than I am


  10. 6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

    If they got super creative they could pay to have those 70 videos pop up when people search the top 100 p**** search words. That would be something :) 

    If Ammon can bring people to Christ by disarming his foes, I'm sure we can bring people to Christ when they search for porn


  11. 18 hours ago, strappinglad said:

    It seems to me that the Church does not put a heavy emphasis on cultivating the spiritual gifts, probably to avoid the connection to charlatans in the past. In the early days there was more openness to not just healings but visions etc. I'm afraid many would look askance if people spoke of visions at testimony meeting. 

    Why? President Nelson has openly spoken of visions.

    My father has shared his with me in the past. Not at testimony meeting that I know of but id never be surprised if someone did


  12. On 6/20/2019 at 10:33 AM, Durangout said:

    The shocking part is not that she says and may believes all this and much much more (cain tried poisoning her in the SLC airport;  certain spirits made secret pacts w lucifer in the pre-existence that God didn't know about and they slipped through and made it to mortaity anyway;  she is 4th member if the 1st presidency in NJ; all the encounters w evil spirits she details...) after all she is a deeply disturbed and sad individual.  No, the shocking part is how many people believe her.  There are FB pages with people pledging their undying belief in her.  Also the positive comments on the youtube vids railing against her excommunication was startling.

    Really, my only question is why did it take so long to X her?

    The Church doesn't usually rush to do this type of discipline

×
×
  • Create New...