President Monson Issued A Court Summons? Is This For Real?

[Grudunza]

Seems Thomas S. Monson has a real choice. He can--

Speak BOLDLY and CLEARLY answering each of the 7 points before the eyes of the WHOLE WORLD (owing to the attention so generously donated by the opposition)

OR

Lawyer up & hunker down

Which do you think it will be? And what would Joseph Smith do?

--Erik

Probably the latter, but not out of any cowardice, but because the world of media has changed immeasurably since the 1800's. He has some potential to gain a lot in a certain way if he does answer, but it may be more of a preaching to the choir thing, whereas anything he says can also instantly be manipulated and taken out of context and spread around the world. Think of it this way... Is the world media likely to publish his words in a powerful, spiritual way? They probably won't even bother covering that. But you can bet that if anything can be taken controversially, then that will be propagated. In that respect, he stands to lose a lot more than gain by answering these charges personally.

I would love to see it, but I doubt he will do that.

[ALarson]

Seems Thomas S. Monson has a real choice.  He can--

 

Speak BOLDLY and CLEARLY answering each of the 7 points before the eyes of the WHOLE WORLD (owing to the attention so generously donated by the opposition)

 

OR

 

Lawyer up & hunker down

 

Which do you think it will be?  And what would Joseph Smith do?

 

--Erik

I understand what you are saying here, but remember President Monson's age.  If he could appear in Utah (or anywhere else in the U.S.), he would probably appear in person.  Sending attorneys to represent him is completely legal.

 

But, I think it would be wonderful and very effective for members of the church (especially the youth) to hear him (or read his words) strongly testify of what he believes in a court of law for everyone to hear.  Can you even imagine how powerful that would be?  I also believe that many, many members who are struggling with the issues listed in the summons would benefit from his knowledge on these issues.

Edited February 8, 2014 by ALarson

[why me]

Seems Thomas S. Monson has a real choice.  He can--

 

Speak BOLDLY and CLEARLY answering each of the 7 points before the eyes of the WHOLE WORLD (owing to the attention so generously donated by the opposition)

 

OR

 

Lawyer up & hunker down

 

Which do you think it will be?  And what would Joseph Smith do?

 

--Erik

I don't think that an eighty-something year old man will be called into court, especially if this eighty something year old man has to travel a few thousand miles. The PR for the UK would be a minus. Not to mention the age of the man involved. This case will not proceed in that direction at all.

[Tacenda]

Just saw this on another board, I guess TP is being interviewed on a radio show today.  http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f97cb98031895282f5ba5a0f8&id=a7f9e12c4e&e=7d30995f1b

[canard78]

Seems Thomas S. Monson has a real choice.  He can--

 

Speak BOLDLY and CLEARLY answering each of the 7 points before the eyes of the WHOLE WORLD (owing to the attention so generously donated by the opposition)

 

OR

 

Lawyer up & hunker down

 

Which do you think it will be?  And what would Joseph Smith do?

 

--Erik

 

The night before being killed by the mob at Carthage, Joseph Smith was trying to make contact with his lawyer. He had every intention of contesting the charges against him in the coming days. So I've no problem with the idea that a prophet will bring in the assistance of experts.

Edited February 8, 2014 by canard78

[sheilauk]

Seems Thomas S. Monson has a real choice.  He can--

 

Speak BOLDLY and CLEARLY answering each of the 7 points before the eyes of the WHOLE WORLD (owing to the attention so generously donated by the opposition)

 

OR

 

Lawyer up & hunker down

 

Which do you think it will be?  And what would Joseph Smith do?

 

--Erik

1st - "a man who represents himself has a fool for a client".  Of course he should get a lawyer.  (of course, you could say, as I'm a lawyer that I would say that!)

 

2nd - these are not necessarily either/or choices.

 

3rd - he does not have to prove anything in Court, nor does he have to answer the individual allegations.  The prosecutor has to prove that Pres. Monson knew/believed these claims to be false and used them to coerce the two people to join the church and then pay a tithe.  good luck with that, even if it gets that far.

 

4th - nothing wrong in vigorously contesting false/frivolous allegations against you and using every means possible.  I'd be out of a job if there were.

 

5th - General Conference is the place for President Monson to declare his beliefs, not a press conference.  If people want to hear him, there are plenty of videos on line and another opportunity coming up soon. Plus the Ensign.

[Thinking]

I understand what you are saying here, but remember President Monson's age.  If he could appear in Utah (or anywhere else in the U.S.), he would probably appear in person.  Sending attorneys to represent him is completely legal.

 

But, I think it would be wonderful and very effective for members of the church (especially the youth) to hear him (or read his words) strongly testify of what he believes in a court of law for everyone to hear.  Can you even imagine how powerful that would be?  I also believe that many, many members who are struggling with the issues listed in the summons would benefit from his knowledge on these issues.

 

In a court of law he would be cross-examined.

[sheilauk]

I understand what you are saying here, but remember President Monson's age.  If he could appear in Utah (or anywhere else in the U.S.), he would probably appear in person.  Sending attorneys to represent him is completely legal.

 

But, I think it would be wonderful and very effective for members of the church (especially the youth) to hear him (or read his words) strongly testify of what he believes in a court of law for everyone to hear.  Can you even imagine how powerful that would be?  I also believe that many, many members who are struggling with the issues listed in the summons would benefit from his knowledge on these issues.

 

 

In a court of law he would be cross-examined.

A Court of Law is not a place for religious testimony.  Witnesses (including defendants) are asked questions by prosecution and defence, in a specific order and in a specific way.  Its not a place to make any kind of statement, the rules are very strict.  Others have tried to use Courts as a soapbox and found it just doesn't work that way.  We lawyers are sticklers and pedantic, especially when we want to be.

 

In addition, Courts in the UK are not televised like in the US.  The only TV is of the Appeal Courts giving judgement.  In the Crown and Magistrates' Courts, a transcript of evidence given is not released (its not even done in the Magistrates' Courts, they just take notes).  Any reporting of what was said would be by the Press, who tend to just give snippets of the actual words said.  You wouldn't get to hear anyone's words and you wouldn't read many.

 

This isn't about Pres Monson appearing in Court but about the furore around the very suggestion.

Edited February 8, 2014 by sheilauk

[ALarson]

5th - General Conference is the place for President Monson to declare his beliefs, not a press conference.  If people want to hear him, there are plenty of videos on line and another opportunity coming up soon. Plus the Ensign.

Yes, to members of the church (mainly).  But, what an incredible opportunity for him to reach many nonmembers with his testimony.  Of course, I completely understand why he would not make the trip to the UK and it's perfectly fine if he has attorneys representing him.

[Kenngo1969]

I understand what you are saying here, but remember President Monson's age.  If he could appear in Utah (or anywhere else in the U.S.), he would probably appear in person.  Sending attorneys to represent him is completely legal.

 

But, I think it would be wonderful and very effective for members of the church (especially the youth) to hear him (or read his words) strongly testify of what he believes in a court of law for everyone to hear.  Can you even imagine how powerful that would be?  I also believe that many, many members who are struggling with the issues listed in the summons would benefit from his knowledge on these issues.

Something about casting pearls before swine comes to mind.  (And I say that as someone with some legal training.)  I think one has to pick one's battles, as well as the fora in which those battles are waged, carefully.  (And if recognizing that fact makes me/President Monson/everyone in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cobardes [cowards] in Erik's/Five Solas'/his like-minded fellows' eyes, so be it.)  

 

President Monson and those who have gone before him have testified boldly and powerfully of the truth of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ for nearly 200 years now.  Those who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to feel will see, hear, and feel, even if President Monson doesn't happen to have a Miracle on 34th Street moment in open court in an English court of law.  He and his predecessors have testified - boldly, clearly, and unambiguously - concerning these things, repeatedly.  But that testimony cannot move doubters who are determined to feed their voracious doubts ravenously while starving their dying faith.  And even among the faithful, every General Conference, too often, we hear, "Yep!  Same ol', same ol'!"  Like those miraculously fed, over and over, with manna in the wilderness, we, too, say, "Manna . . . again?!" Except in our case, it's, "Huh?  We had another General Conference, eh?  Ho-hum!  We've had enough milk!  Where's the beef?!!!"  

 

Frankly, although I probably shouldn't say this (fools rush in, and all that , though I could certainly be mistaken, and I hope I am), with due respect, Erik's kind invitation strikes me as having been extended in the same spirit as that issued by the scribes and the chief priests in their pre-Crucifixion council: "Art thou the Christ?" they asked.  "Tell us!"  He responded, "If I tell you, you will not believe." See Luke 22:67.  If we can't feel the still, small, voice, then even the mightiest winds, fires, and earthquakes will fail to move us (see 1 Kings 19:12).  The world's collective reaction when they hear these things too often is, "That's it?  Meh!  The last video game I played or movie I watched was more impressive than that!"  I think President Monson's response to those hoping he'll have Miracle on 34th Street moment in open court should parallel the Savior's response in Matthew 12:39.

[Kenngo1969]

Just saw this on another board, I guess TP is being interviewed on a radio show today.  http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f97cb98031895282f5ba5a0f8&id=a7f9e12c4e&e=7d30995f1b

Keep right on using those initials, Tacenda!  Here's what I think of when I think of "TP"!

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Toilet_paper_orientation_over.jpg

 

Perhaps that's what he should have written his "manifesto" on???  

[Kenngo1969]

A Court of Law is not a place for religious testimony.  Witnesses (including defendants) are asked questions by prosecution and defence, in a specific order and in a specific way.  Its not a place to make any kind of statement, the rules are very strict.  Others have tried to use Courts as a soapbox and found it just doesn't work that way.  We lawyers are sticklers and pedantic, especially when we want to be. ...

 

You don't say?!!

[sheilauk]

A Court of Law is not a place for religious testimony.  Witnesses (including defendants) are asked questions by prosecution and defence, in a specific order and in a specific way.  Its not a place to make any kind of statement, the rules are very strict.  Others have tried to use Courts as a soapbox and found it just doesn't work that way.  We lawyers are sticklers and pedantic, especially when we want to be.

 

 

 

You don't say?!!

I know!  Hard to believe isn't it? 

[Kenngo1969]

1st - "a man who represents himself has a fool for a client".  Of course he should get a lawyer.  (of course, you could say, as I'm a lawyer that I would say that!)

 

2nd - these are not necessarily either/or choices.

 

3rd - he does not have to prove anything in Court, nor does he have to answer the individual allegations.  The prosecutor has to prove that Pres. Monson knew/believed these claims to be false and used them to coerce the two people to join the church and then pay a tithe.  good luck with that, even if it gets that far.

 

4th - nothing wrong in vigorously contesting false/frivolous allegations against you and using every means possible.  I'd be out of a job if there were.

 

5th - General Conference is the place for President Monson to declare his beliefs, not a press conference.  If people want to hear him, there are plenty of videos on line and another opportunity coming up soon. Plus the Ensign.

Quoted for truth, especially your Number Four.  Heck, I'm one of the more pro-police, pro-prosecution people you'll find anywhere, and I'll even go so far as to say that the allegations need not even be facially false nor frivolous in order to justify vigorously contesting them!  If a prosecutor's gonna haul someone into court on criminal charges, I don't care if the whole world thinks the accused is guilty as sin!  It ain't what ya know, it's what you can prove, and if you're gonna do that, you better have your ducks in a row!

[halconero]

Seems Thomas S. Monson has a real choice.  He can--

 

Speak BOLDLY and CLEARLY answering each of the 7 points before the eyes of the WHOLE WORLD (owing to the attention so generously donated by the opposition)

 

OR

 

Lawyer up & hunker down

 

Which do you think it will be?  And what would Joseph Smith do?

 

--Erik

 

Seems like Paul of Tarsus has a real choice. He can--

 

Speak BOLDLY and CLEARLY answering each of the points before the eyes of the WHOLE CITY OF JERUSALEM (owing to the attention so generously donated by the Sanhedrin)

 

OR 

 

Appeal to Caesar & hunker down

 

Which do you think it will be?

 

--Robert

[Kenngo1969]

I know!  Hard to believe isn't it? 

Very!  (You can tell I don't know any lawyers! )

Edited February 8, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[omni]

Isn't this tax thing true for all churches in the UK though, and not just the LDS church?

I mean, doesn't it work the same way with the catholic church, for example? Couldn't people declare their donations under that special charity tax thingy and allow the state to pay a portion of back to the Catholic church?

This quote above makes it sound like this only applies and/or is utilized by the LDS church but it doesn't, does it?

Yes, I believe the law applies to all churches in the UK, but I think the poster was implying there will be much less sympathy for our church. Unfortunately, we are often viewed on the same level as Scientology in much of the world. If a case were brought against the Catholic or any of the main Protestant churches I think the poster is implying they'd get a lot more sympathy from the general population, even among those who aren't adherents. That being said, I don't believe the case will ever get anywhere near that far.

[Calm]

 But, what an incredible opportunity for him to reach many nonmembers with his testimony.

 

Apparently not according to Sheila (do you have any reason to doubt her?).

[Calm]

 Unfortunately, we are often viewed on the same level as Scientology in much of the world.

CFR please…serious request, I would like to see this.

 

The only comparison I've seen places us much more mainstream than Scientology.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/08/brtain-puts-mormonism-on-trial.html

 

But while the case might be an aberration in the British court system, it is also a reminder of anti-Mormon attitudes that at one time abounded in British society and were often expressed most loudly by disaffected Mormons themselves.

Broadly speaking, Mormons are tight-knit, and accepted minority group in the United Kingdom and Europe. There are roughly 200,000 church members in the U.K., making up less than one-third of one percent of the population. The days when “the only things people tended to know [about Mormons] were polygamy and Donny Osmond” are long gone, said James Holt, a scholar of LDS history at the University of Chester. The British press’s voyeuristic fascination with Mormons notwithstanding, America’s homegrown religion has become increasingly normalized across the pond.

 

But it’s unlikely that the suit will do much to shake the standing of the LDS church in the U.K. Mormonism’s reputation in the U.K. changed for the better in the 1940s, after the church donated food and supplies to war-torn European countries. In the 1950s, the first two temples were erected in Europe, one in London and one in Switzerland. Today, Holt said, second and third generation Mormons experience little religious discrimination from other British civilians. “I meet people and they tend to know one other member of the church. That breaks down myths.” Still, he said, “It’s not like living in Utah, where it seems every other person is a member of the church.”

Many observers of the Phillips case have compared it to another recent religious freedom debacle in Britain. In December, a 25-year-old woman succeeded in her five-year-long legal battle to be married in the Church of Scientology chapel in London. The case, which was decided by Britain’s Supreme Court, overturned a 158-year-old precedent defining the worship of god as central to state-recognized religions.

But Holt disagrees with the comparison; he can’t envision the British courts legislating Mormon doctrine. “There is a question about whether the Church of Scientology is a religion or not,” he said. “Whereas, I don’t think Mormons have that question hanging over them.

 

[urroner]

Seems Thomas S. Monson has a real choice.  He can--

 

Speak BOLDLY and CLEARLY answering each of the 7 points before the eyes of the WHOLE WORLD (owing to the attention so generously donated by the opposition)

 

OR

 

Lawyer up & hunker down

 

Which do you think it will be?  And what would Joseph Smith do?

 

--Erik

Erik, have you ever heard of any of the following logical fallacies:

• False dilemma
• Black-and/or-White thinking
• Bifurcation
• Denying a Conjunct
• The Either-or Fallacy
• False Dichotomy
• Fallacy of Exhaustive Hypotheses
• Fallacy of False Choice
• Fallacy of the False Alternative
• Fallacy of the Excluded Middle
• Fallacy of Two Extremes

Your post was a great example of all the above.

 

Okay, so you don't have to look them up, they, generally, refer to the same logical fallacy.

 

 

A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.

In general, a false dichotomy gives the impression that the two oppositie options are mutually exclusive (that is, only one of them may be the case, never both) and that at least one of them is true, that is, they represent all of the possible options.

 

Then there is Morton's Fork.  You did that also.

 

Morton's Fork is a logical dilemma in which people are faced with two equally bad options. You could think of it as being "between the devil and the deep blue sea," as the saying goes. Unless the victim of the dilemma manages to find an exception, the outcome of the situation will most probably be undesirable, as there can be no good outcome from any of the choices the victim is faced with. Many people find themselves struggling with Morton's Fork at some point in their lives.

 

This term is named after Lord Chancellor John Morton, who worked in England under Henry VII. According to Morton's logic, wealthy subjects of the Crown obviously had money to be spared for taxes, and poor subjects were clearly sitting on savings, so they could also bear high taxes. Rich and poor alike found themselves at the points of "Morton's Fork," paying high taxes.

 

Wow, two for the price of one.

 

But then again, with not a lot of twisting, you also committed an argumentum ad hominem. or possibly even "poisoning the well."

Either President Monson is a brave and honorable man and will go to England and face the consequences like a real man OR he will quell and shake is his SLC bunker house while high powered lawyers, scourges and scrounges of the Earth, born pond scum, will make it easy for him.

Awesome!!!

 

And then you just had to throw in the old "WWJSD."

Gee, I don't know what he would do, but this I can tell you, if he was alive right now, he'd probably clawing frantically at the inside of his coffin.

Why don't you tell us what JS would do in this situation.

Edited February 8, 2014 by urroner

[Kenngo1969]

 

 

Apparently not according to Sheila (do you have any reason to doubt her?).

 

C'mon!  She's a lawyer!  What more reason do you need!

[omni]

CFR please…serious request, I would like to see this.

 

The only comparison I've seen places us much more mainstream than Scientology.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/08/brtain-puts-mormonism-on-trial.html

 

 

CFR?  Lol, anyone who's read the comments section of a national news stories about the church knows that we will inevitably be compared to Scientology.  I certainly don't agree with that comparison, but unfortunately there are many who do.  However, since you asked, here you go.

 

One

 

Two

 

Three

 

Four

[Calm]

CFR?  Lol, anyone who's read the comments section of a national news stories about the church knows that we will inevitably be compared to Scientology.  I certainly don't agree with that comparison, but unfortunately there are many who do.  However, since you asked, here you go.

 

However, comments sections are hardly an accurate method of finding out the typical resident's reaction to something.  If one were to judge Utah by comments in the Tribune, one would assume that a high percentage of Utahns abhorred the Church…do you think that is an accurate portrayal?  I would prefer some sort of professional polling that rated a variety of faiths.

 

Thanks for the links, will read them now.

 

Having read them, they appear to be opinion pieces without any data that actually compares how the typical resident feels about Scientology as compared to Mormonism…so not what I was looking for, thanks anyway.

Edited February 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[canard78]

Yes, to members of the church (mainly). But, what an incredible opportunity for him to reach many nonmembers with his testimony. Of course, I completely understand why he would not make the trip to the UK and it's perfectly fine if he has attorneys representing him.

Urgh! Please, read and re-read sheilauk's words. In the UK we do not allow trials to be a media circus like you do in USA. There would be no platform to testify to nonmembers while in court for at least 3 reasons:

- UK courts don't give the platform to do this.

- There are no cameras in UK courts. No-one ever see him, even if he could bear witness in court.

- No-one would be watching. Mormonism is of very little interest to the vast majority of Brits. Even if the first two were not an issue, Pres. Monson has next to no awareness or importance to Brits.

Whatever Nephi-esque stand in court fantasy you have in your head could never happen in UK.

I should add a 4th. It will never happen because it's not even going to get to trial. This is a publicity stunt for MormonThink. That's about it.

[Calm]

Whatever Nephi-esque stand in court fantasy you have in your head could never happen in UK. 

 

Come on, don't you think if he got up on the stand and then anyone who tried to shut him up got zapped by an angelic shock, it would at least make the back pages of the news.

 

I like the guys who are demanding an Abinadi stand for President Monson or they just won't be convinced…but this is the first I've heard that England has brought back burning at the stake.  And the whole old guy in chains is a bit much don't you think? Do you Brits really keep big cats in your court rooms!

 

Edited February 8, 2014 by calmoriah