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

[Saints Alive]

The underlying logic of the British test is that a religion must be open to all and open about itself.

Alex Klein wrote on BuzzFeed: "All religions have their Xenus, multi-armed elephants, or magic babies, their morally ambiguous prophets, their tall tales and scandals."

That's not quite right. Go into a Christian church and they will tell you about the "magic baby", Jesus. You will see images of him, everywhere, dating back almost 2,000 years. Go into a Hindu temple and you will see images of Ganesh, the multi-armed elephant God, everywhere, images that go back millennia. Go into a Church of Scientology Org and you will see no image of Xenu. No member of the Church of Scientology will admit to Xenu's existence, but ex-Scientologists say he is at the heart of its cosmology. Scientology fails the British test of what is or is not a religion because it is not open about what it believes in. A belief system that tells lies about its core belief does not have the automatic right to be treated as a religion.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/scientology-hides-allegations-mask-religion

[saemo]

Agreed, Nehor!

 

Doesn't the UK also abide by freedom of religion?  They don't require everyone to be Catholic even though that is the prevalent religion there.  If they did, the missionaries wouldn't be able to preach in the UK.  I don't see how there is anything fraudulent that can be proven.  The Church attorneys will be all over this.  I don't think it really stands much of a chance of going anywhere, except possibly inconveniencing President Monson in having to travel to the UK.  Hasn't he been a little more frail physically?  Could he make that type of a trip?

My understanding of UK law (which could be off) is that the burden of proof is on the defendant, not on the prosecution.

[The Nehor]

Agreed, Nehor!

 

Doesn't the UK also abide by freedom of religion?  They don't require everyone to be Catholic even though that is the prevalent religion there.  If they did, the missionaries wouldn't be able to preach in the UK.  I don't see how there is anything fraudulent that can be proven.  The Church attorneys will be all over this.  I don't think it really stands much of a chance of going anywhere, except possibly inconveniencing President Monson in having to travel to the UK.  Hasn't he been a little more frail physically?  Could he make that type of a trip?

I served my mission in England. They do have freedom of religion. There is some connection between church and state (queen is still titular head of Anglican church). I can all but guarantee you that President Monson will not show up and will not have to. While he ineptly tried to drag him in personally the alleged fraud allegations have to be aimed at the church and not the prophet as that is where the donations go. This is unlikely to get to a jury.

[ALarson]

Here's some information regarding the names on the summons:

 

"Two names were given in two summons as the parties to whom Monson made false representations:  Stephen Colin Bloor and Christopher Denis Ralph.  

 

Stephen Bloor is a third generation Mormon, a podiatrist who served as a Mormon bishop until he discovered the LDS Church gave many false representations.  He penned a resignation as bishop and  now writes a blog, campaigning for openness & honesty in the Mormon Church.

 

Christopher Ralph is a Mormon convert since 1971, who served in bishoprics, and in 2012 helped write open letters to the European Area Presidency, LDS First Presidency (Monson) and the quorum of the twelve apostles,  on behalf of many troubled members in the UK.  These letters were met with silence.  Chris also was the first blogger to break the story behind Grant Palmer’s “undercover” Mormon General Authority."

[The Nehor]

My understanding of UK law (which could be off) is that the burden of proof is on the defendant, not on the prosecution.

Nope.

Also, President Monson is not subject to the jurisdiction of a British court. To force him to appear they would have to have an extradition hearing and convince the US government to arrest him and deliver him to British custody (not going to happen).

This would have had a chance of making it to court if he had named the church as defendant. Not much of one....but possible. For comparison if a bank rips you off you sue the bank not the CEO.

[cinepro]

"October Surprise"? More like a "February Fizzle"!

Obviously President Monson will never take the stand, but I guess this could keep him from ever visiting England again (if that were ever even a possibility in his condition).

Ultimately, the only "value" anti-mormons would get from this is the accusation itself, so we'll hear endlessly of how the Church was "taken to court for fraud", and apologists will have to endlessly explain the details. It's been a Mormon tradition since 1826.

[BCSpace]

Notice that the allegations are mostly not even the doctrine of the Church.  Only ii and iv seem to be.

Edited February 4, 2014 by BCSpace

[David T]

Waiting for the Salt Lake Trib's article on this by Peggy Fletcher Stack any time now She's probably in the process of fact-checking reciept at headquarters and getting quotes and statements right now. She's always the first legitimate publication out on any LDS developments that first come out and begin to be discussed online . . .

 

Once that article comes up, THEN the media circus, if any, will begin.

[David T]

As silly as this all is, I'm still grabbing my popcorn to see how this plays out.

[saemo]

Nope.

Also, President Monson is not subject to the jurisdiction of a British court. To force him to appear they would have to have an extradition hearing and convince the US government to arrest him and deliver him to British custody (not going to happen).

This would have had a chance of making it to court if he had named the church as defendant. Not much of one....but possible. For comparison if a bank rips you off you sue the bank not the CEO.

You can file a civil suit against a CEO.

 

But I find it amusing that you are comparing the LDS Church to a business.

Edited February 4, 2014 by saemo

[Johnnie Cake]

yeah they didn't even get the address correct...argggg...not a good start

[David T]

You can file a civil suit against a CEO.

 

But I find it amusing that you are comparing the LDS Church to a business.

 

The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an incorporated business.

Edited February 4, 2014 by David T

[saemo]

The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an incorporated business.

Which is not named in the suit.

[Kenngo1969]

Too bad there is no such thing as criminal idiocy.

If there were, this, no doubt, would be a First Degree, Aggravated, and/or maybe even a Capital Felony!

[juliann]

Image: Landov

14. Richard Overton Sues Budweiser

In 1991, Richard Overton turned on the TV and was outraged by what he saw: pictures of people drinking beer with hot girls! So, he sued Anheuser-Busch for $10k for false advertising. He noted that the commercials for Bud Light, depicted scenarios where "beautiful women and men engaged in endless and unrestricted merriment." Overton apparently felt distress when he discovered beer didn't guarantee this. His case was promptly dismissed. Please, no one tell him about unicorns.

 

 

http://www.trutv.com/conspiracy/bizarre/stupid-lawsuits/gallery.html?curPhoto=2  WARNING: website likely has offensive material on it.

[ALarson]

The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an incorporated business.

Which is not named in the suit.

It is still an incorporated business though, named or not.   I think most members know that it's a corporation.

Edited February 4, 2014 by ALarson

[saemo]

 

David T, on 04 Feb 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

It is still an incorporated business though, named or not.   I think most members know that it's a corporation.

 

Yes, I know. For purposes of handling for-profit entities, which is legally separate from the non-profit religious entity known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have the impression it is the non-profit activities and associated claims that are the target of the suit, not the for-profit entities.

Edited February 4, 2014 by saemo

[Kenngo1969]

yeah they didn't even get the address correct...argggg...not a good start

Somebody might've mentioned that already.  

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62767-president-monson-issued-a-court-summons-is-this-for-real/#entry1209341444 

 

Just sayin'!  

[Mystery Meat]

If, and that is a huge if, this were to ever go anywhere, all it would do is legitimize the naysayers and doubters in the eyes of the faithful and their children.

[David T]

If, and that is a huge if, this were to ever go anywhere, all it would do is legitimize the naysayers and doubters in the eyes of the faithful and their children.

 

More likely, it would probably just turn into a faith-promoting story in a manual or conference talk down the road of the time the Apostates took the Prophet to court, and the Prophet stood his ground and bore his testimony. Probably in the Book of Mormon lesson on Zeezrom.

Edited February 4, 2014 by David T

[The Nehor]

You can file a civil suit against a CEO.

 

But I find it amusing that you are comparing the LDS Church to a business.

 

You can but then it has to be the CEO doing the fraud and not the business as a whole.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[The Nehor]

More likely, it would probably just turn into a faith-promoting story in a manual or conference talk down the road of the time the Apostates took the Prophet to court, and the Prophet stood his ground and bore his testimony. Probably in the Book of Mormon lesson on Zeezrom.

 

I would instead suggest memorializing this by referring to errors in judgment of dumb mistakes as "a Tom Philips" in the future.

 

"Yeah, he pulled a Tom Philips there. The activity was completely organized and everything but then no one with keys showed up to open the building."

[ALarson]

This could get ugly for the church PR if charges are also filed in Germany and France against President Monson.  People love a good scandal and don't seem to care if the charges have any legitimatcy behind them

[BCSpace]

So the Crown would have to demonstrate that:

• TSM personally made or caused to be made the claims listed in the summons
• the claims listed in the summons are, in fact, untrue or misleading
• TSM knows them to be untrue or misleading or knows that they might be untrue or misleading
• TSM knowingly misled Mr. Bloor for the purpose of making a gain "for himself or another" or causing Mr. Bloor a loss.

As much as I disapprove of frivolous and malicious lawsuits, part of me would actually like to see this go to trial. I would love to see the prosecution try to prove that Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon from gold plates.

 

 

The opposition knows that this is a frivolous lawsuit and that nothing of legal consequence will come of it.  What they want to happen is to have LDS doctrine, or what they want people to think is LDS doctrine, publicly dragged through the mud. They believe this will shed negative light on the Church; and it will certainly.  However, this is also a great opportunity as always to find out what the doctrine really is and to talk to people about the Church.