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

[why me]

Lol, I guess I'll go down to the ward and request a temple sealing. My status shouldn't matter according to you.

Just because you have such a low view of the Catholic sacraments, doesn't mean Catholics do. NO ONE is entitled to receive them.

In the lds church one can get married in church. No problem. No one is denied a marriage right. And it doesn't matter if that person pays tithing or not...they can get married in the lds chapel. And have a lds burial when they die.

 

Amazingly, I can change your last sentence this way: Just because you have such a low view of lds temple recommends, doesn't mean mormons do. NO ONE is entitled to receive them.

 

Do you see just how your words can be used against you? And that is my point. Much better to speak kindly....both members of the catholic church and the lds church respect their sacred traditions and what it takes to practice them.

 

And no faith can be proven true or wrong before a court of law. It is all a matter of faith.

Edited February 9, 2014 by why me

[rodheadlee]

Mr Gorbachev tear down that wall.

[why me]

Probably not.

 

There are a few Latter-day Saints that post there.  They defend the faith well.

 

 

 

 

I think that I remember you from that site. You had the same screen name. You defended the catholic faith and I remember conversing with you. You were very articulate with your knowledge and well educated. You defended the catholic faith but then turned mormon...gave a good defense of mormonism and was banned. Do I remember correctly?

[why me]

Mr Gorbachev tear down that wall.

We are all berliners.

[Five Solas]

...

 

Was your post an example of a false dichotomy or not?

 

...

I'm voting "not" (much to Scott Lloyd's chagrin, no doubt).

 

Thomas S. Monson certainly has a choice in his response.  He could answer with boldness and clarity.  He could do something else.  Some might even call this choice an illustration of the man's "free agency"--though I wouldn't go that far.  Regardless, his choice will say something about his character. 

 

BTW, I realize he's old and not likely in the best of health.  If he's incapacitated or otherwise unaware what's going on--then obviously any response by the institution reflects on the men behind him, and not Monson himself. 

 

Thanks for asking, urroner

 

--Erik

[saemo]

In the lds church one can get married in church. No problem. No one is denied a marriage right. And it doesn't matter if that person pays tithing or not...they can get married in the lds chapel. And have a lds burial when they die.

 

Amazingly, I can change your last sentence this way: Just because you have such a low view of lds temple recommends, doesn't mean mormons do. NO ONE is entitled to receive them.

 

Do you see just how your words can be used against you? And that is my point. Much better to speak kindly....both members of the catholic church and the lds church respect their sacred traditions and what it takes to practice them.

 

And no faith can be proven true or wrong before a court of law. It is all a matter of faith.

...and.....you continue to have a low view of Catholic sacraments and the buildings in which they take place.

I never said anything about proving faith in a court. So Once again, you're just making up crap, trying to ascribe your ideas to me.

[Abulafia]

I am sure that they are nice guys. But the way they have went about it, was not nice. It seems more like payback time. And it must have come from a bitter source. What is honesty? What should the lds church teach its members and investigators? Maybe your two friends could write an lds investigator book and the church could use that with its missionaries. I am afraid that history will always be debatable as will the facts. Impossible to please everyone with interpretations. And the accusation of something hidden is like a bedbug. What church can write a perfect history for its critics? I haven't met one yet. .

Why me, if you check the individual letters you will see what both Steve and Chris (rightly or wrongly), are asking the church to be honest about.

[saemo]

Many german catholics have left the fold. They may not agree with you

Right. If you "leave the fold"you should have no expectation of receiving the sacraments of the Church

 

For many german catholics, a forced tax by the church and whether they pay it or not should not stop them from communion, an important sacrament in the catholic faith. I really don't care one way or another. I just find it hypocritical when people of other faiths criticize the lds faith and yet, make excuses for their own faith. For germans their tax is more than a tithe. No payment, no church benefits.

CFR! The German Catholics at CAF say they have not heard Catholic faithful complain about the tax. The complaint comes from people who want to both be out of the Church, but receive her sacraments.

It is not a tithe, it is a tax, based on income, and not applied to people of low income. It is a tax deduction, so a person's over all tax rate is less than 2% higher on average than those who don't pay this income tax. Anyone, of any income, can choose to give an offering to the Church in Germany. As I already explained, the tax is a cultural aspect of Germany. Catholics who want to receive the sacraments without paying the tax do so for cultural reasons. The German Bishop's stance is that you can't be partially Catholic, denying your cultural Catholic heritage in one sense, while expecting it in another. They have also said it is about protecting the sacraments, from them becoming nothing but the cool thing you do because everyone does it, but having no faith or desire for faith from the recipient.

I don't care what Mormons pay to their church. I don't find the idea that you don't go to heaven unless you pay to be Biblical. But whatever, I'm not Mormon, and believe there will be good people of all faiths in heaven, in the presence of God. I don't see a similar belief in Mormonism. So again, you're presenting arguments that are red herrings.

To the point of this thread,I am not in agreement with those who have filed this complaint in court. I see an element of atheistic nihilism, which I will not ever support.

 

EVERYONE:  This thread is about a summons, not other churches.  Start another thread or this will be closed.

[urroner]

But whatever, I'm not Mormon, and believe there will be good people of all faiths in heaven, in the presence of God. I don't see a similar belief in Mormonism. So again, you're presenting arguments that are red herrings.

 

Scratches his head, Urroner does.  To talk in the third person Yoda style, Urroner enjoys.  Good people of all faiths in heaven, but not a belief in Mormonism.  To discuss this misconception about Mormonism in another thread saemo, encourage you Urroner does.

Edited February 10, 2014 by urroner

[Kenngo1969]

I'm voting "not" (much to Scott Lloyd's chagrin, no doubt).

 

Thomas S. Monson certainly has a choice in his response.  He could answer with boldness and clarity.  He could do something else.  Some might even call this choice an illustration of the man's "free agency"--though I wouldn't go that far.  Regardless, his choice will say something about his character. 

 

BTW, I realize he's old and not likely in the best of health.  If he's incapacitated or otherwise unaware what's going on--then obviously any response by the institution reflects on the men behind him, and not Monson himself. 

 

Thanks for asking, urroner

 

--Erik

No, it won't say anything about his "character," Erik.  (Veiled insult noted!  Thanks! )  Not a thing.  And the reason why it won't say anything about his "character" is because, while using a court of law as a soapbox might make for appealing drama, it's not possible in real life.  As those "in-the-know" (one, in particular) have tried to explain to you, the rules of evidence and procedure will not allow what you're suggesting.

 

Tell me: if President Thomas S. Monson were to take the course you're suggesting, would that cause you suddenly to "see the light," to renounce your current faith, and to embrace anew your former faith? Do you think it would have a similar effect on anyone else who's in a situation similar to yours?  If the answer to those questions is, "No," then, as much as you might think them unfair for doing so, people have a right to indict you in exactly the same way you are attempting to indict President Monson.  (Unless turnabout really isn't fair play ... !)  You remind me of the guy who once boldly proclaimed to Elder Glenn L. Pace, "I would have died for Joseph Smith!"  Whereupon Elder Pace asked, "Really?  What are you doing for President Gordon B. Hinckley today?"

 

And even if President Monson were to (be allowed to) do what your suggesting, the disaffected would simply use it as more fodder to mount further attacks against the Church of Jesus Christ.  (And, if you were honest with yourself and with us, it seems certain that you'd have to admit that that's exactly what you want!  Sorry to burst your bubble, Erik! )

Edited February 10, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Scratches his head, Urroner does.  To talk in the third person Yoda style, Urroner enjoys.  Good people of all faiths in heaven, but not a belief in Mormonism.  To discuss this misconception about Mormonism in another thread saemo, encourage you Urroner does.

Funny you are, Master Yoda thinks!

[Five Solas]

No, it won't say anything about his "character," Erik.  (Veiled insult noted!  Thanks! )  Not a thing.  And the reason why it won't say anything about his "character" is because, while using a court of law as a soapbox might make for appealing drama, it's not possible in real life.  As those "in-the-know" (one, in particular) have tried to explain to you, the rules of evidence and procedure will not allow what you're suggesting.

 

...

The choices we make very much reveal our character, Kenngo.  From the heart the mouth speaks--your Bible tells you that.  And there's no insult here at all, veiled or otherwise.  I've never met Thomas S. Monson and quite honestly I don't know much about the man.  He apparently likes shopping--but I enjoy it too on occassion.  And while I'm no fan of traditional LDS theology (by which I mean the doctrines I heard growing up & into adulthood)--for all I know he's not into them either.  If he's published anything that articulates his worldview & theology--I'm unaware.   But even if he has & I didn't like it--it doesn't mean I'd go about insulting him personally. 

 

Am I the only one who sees the irony in LDS claiming their prophet lacks free agency--"it's not possible in real life."  In the U.S. of A., how many celebrities do we have capitalizing on their legal woes?  More than a few!  You'd have us believe they have greater "agency" than an LDS prophet?  And you say I'm the one being insulting?!?  Seriously, Kenngo--you need to think this through

;0)

 

--Erik

[halconero]

The choices we make very much reveal our character, Kenngo.  From the heart the mouth speaks--your Bible tells you that.  And there's no insult here at all, veiled or otherwise.  I've never met Thomas S. Monson and quite honestly I don't know much about the man.  He apparently likes shopping--but I enjoy it too on occassion.  And while I'm no fan of traditional LDS theology (by which I mean the doctrines I heard growing up & into adulthood)--for all I know he's not into them either.  If he's published anything that articulates his worldview & theology--I'm unaware.   But even if he has & I didn't like it--it doesn't mean I'd go about insulting him personally. 

 

Am I the only one who sees the irony in LDS claiming their prophet lacks free agency--"it's not possible in real life."  In the U.S. of A., how many celebrities do we have capitalizing on their legal woes?  More than a few!  You'd have us believe they have greater "agency" than an LDS prophet?  And you say I'm the one being insulting?!?  Seriously, Kenngo--you need to think this through

;0)

 

--Erik

 

I don't think that's what Kenngo is trying to say. The "it's not possible in real life" comment looks more like it's in reference to the British court system, rather than President Monson's agency. British courts of law (also Canadian) are not open in the same way they trials are open in the US. Cameras or recordings are not permitted. In other words, the actual trial won't be much of a soapbox beyond the publicity it may or may not create.

[Five Solas]

I don't think that's what Kenngo is trying to say. The "it's not possible in real life" comment looks more like it's in reference to the British court system, rather than President Monson's agency. British courts of law (also Canadian) are not open in the same way they trials are open in the US. Cameras or recordings are not permitted. In other words, the actual trial won't be much of a soapbox beyond the publicity it may or may not create.

Then he should just request a change of venue, halconero.  It's now so obvious

;0)

 

But that's hardly the point, isn't it?  As if a bold & clear speach could only be made in a UK court of law.  Have to leave it at that for now.  Good night, all

 

--Erik

[halconero]

Is that sarcasm? Sometimes it's hard to tell over the internet.

 

What is your point? That he give a bold & clear speech? What constitutes that it your eyes?

[Avatar4321]

I'm voting "not" (much to Scott Lloyd's chagrin, no doubt).

 

Thomas S. Monson certainly has a choice in his response.  He could answer with boldness and clarity.  He could do something else.  Some might even call this choice an illustration of the man's "free agency"--though I wouldn't go that far.  Regardless, his choice will say something about his character. 

 

BTW, I realize he's old and not likely in the best of health.  If he's incapacitated or otherwise unaware what's going on--then obviously any response by the institution reflects on the men behind him, and not Monson himself. 

 

Thanks for asking, urroner

 

--Erik

 

Or he could do as Neremiah did when those who wanted the Work of God to fail tried to distract him: Ignore them and keep doing God's will.

[Avatar4321]

Why me, if you check the individual letters you will see what both Steve and Chris (rightly or wrongly), are asking the church to be honest about.

 

That would imply the Church is being dishonest about anything. We aren't.

[Avatar4321]

Then he should just request a change of venue, halconero.  It's now so obvious

;0)

 

But that's hardly the point, isn't it?  As if a bold & clear speach could only be made in a UK court of law.  Have to leave it at that for now.  Good night, all

 

--Erik

 

Exactly who else do you think has the jurisdiction to hear a case regarding the law of the UK? Where would he change the venue to? And why?

 

Maybe one of our UK legal experts could tell me how the UK courts even have jurisdiction over President Monson anyway.

[Thinking]

Exactly who else do you think has the jurisdiction to hear a case regarding the law of the UK? Where would he change the venue to? And why?

 

Maybe one of our UK legal experts could tell me how the UK courts even have jurisdiction over President Monson anyway.

 

I'm no legal expert, but it seems that the presence of the Church in the UK would give the courts jurisdiction over the highest ranking church official. I don't know if he would be extradited but a refusal to answer the charges (either personally or through legal counsel) would certainly cause problems for the church in the UK.

[why me]

Why me, if you check the individual letters you will see what both Steve and Chris (rightly or wrongly), are asking the church to be honest about.

When it comes to history, what is honest? What would be the correct interpretation? Whose interpretation should be believed? What facts should be known? And who determines the interpretation of historical facts? I see a problem with answering these questions. Here is what I see with established churches. Scholars are writing their history. These scholars can belong to the same faith as they are writing about or they may be from a different faith or no faith at all. It is the historians who are debating history and debating the interpretations and the facts. No the churches. I see no church actively engaged in a comprehensive history lesson for its members and if history is taught it is usually from a faith based interpretation.

 

Should the UK courts pressure the UK muslim community to be honest with their hístory too, the history that is being taught in muslim sponsored schools I am sure is faith based? Who will be the overseer of the knowledge learned? And the interpretation?

 

So why pressure the lds church? Why single it out? My guess is because it is an easy target.

Edited February 10, 2014 by why me

[The Nehor]

I'm no legal expert, but it seems that the presence of the Church in the UK would give the courts jurisdiction over the highest ranking church official. I don't know if he would be extradited but a refusal to answer the charges (either personally or through legal counsel) would certainly cause problems for the church in the UK.

 

Not unless the suit targets the church as a whole. The British legal system could in theory try for extradition but the chances of both the British seeking it and the US Government granting it are astronomically low. Neither would want the publicity involved even if they did see any merit (which they should not as there isn't any).

 

Imagine that the British decide to try these claims and the Americans agree to extradite and establish a precedent that they are okay with these kinds of cases being decided in a court of law. Do we put creationism on trial next for the Protestants and Catholics? Or maybe argue the existence of Jesus in a court of law? Argue whether Nirvana is real so donations to Buddhism are okay? Imprison website owners that deny climate change because they ask for donations? How about string theory? Whether Mohammed was a prophet?

 

This would be an Orwellian weapon. We are not so far gone on either side of the pond that the courts are going to mess with this. This will be forgotten as an embarrassment. If the magistrate was really as involved as Philips said (I do not consider him a reliable witness) then I predict this may be a big career mistake.

 

If I am wrong and we are that far gone then I will bump up my Second Coming prediction by a century or two.

[why me]

Right. If you "leave the fold"you should have no expectation of receiving the sacraments of the Church

 

CFR! The German Catholics at CAF say they have not heard Catholic faithful complain about the tax. The complaint comes from people who want to both be out of the Church, but receive her sacraments.

 

 

EVERYONE:  This thread is about a summons, not other churches.  Start another thread or this will be closed.

And this is likewise a complaint by many exmormons too. After now we have a court case in the UK by exmormons. My point is saemo is that those who are now outside wish to change what they used to believe in. They want the lds church to accomodate their new worldview. Thus, the court case. Most of the problems stem from exmembers wishing to change the structure that they used to believe in. And to cause trouble for the church of that former belief system. I don't support excatholics or wayward catholics attempting to change the catholic church. And I don't support Tom and his two friends for attempting to do the same to the lds church.

 

And we both agree I think that a win in this case would mean that other religions would be open to attack, especially the state churches would be vulnerable in europe.

Edited February 10, 2014 by why me

[Kenngo1969]

I'm no legal expert, but it seems that the presence of the Church in the UK would give the courts jurisdiction over the highest ranking church official. I don't know if he would be extradited but a refusal to answer the charges (either personally or through legal counsel) would certainly cause problems for the church in the UK.

No one's suggesting that President Monson (or the Church of Jesus Christ) "refus[e] to answer the charges," ridiculous though they are.

 

 

Edited February 10, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Or he could do as Ne[h]emiah did when those who wanted the Work of God to fail tried to distract him: Ignore them and keep doing God's will.

http://lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/we-are-doing-a-great-work-and-cannot-come-down?lang=eng

 

In other words, let the lawyers handle the legal nonsense and keep on truckin'!

Edited February 10, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I don't think that's what Kenngo is trying to say. The "it's not possible in real life" comment looks more like it's in reference to the British court system, rather than President Monson's agency. British courts of law (also Canadian) are not open in the same way they trials are open in the US. Cameras or recordings are not permitted. In other words, the actual trial won't be much of a soapbox beyond the publicity it may or may not create.

Not to mention that the moment President Monson rises to his feet and says, "Your Honor, at this time, I'd like to take this opportunity to bear my testimony ..." opposing counsel will, in turn, rise to his feet and say, "Objection, Your Honor."  And His Honor then will say, "Sustained."  Whereupon, if President Monson says something like, "Your Honor, with due respect, while you may attempt to silence me, God has directed me to come here to speak the truth," His Honor then will say, "Mr. Monson, if you persist, you will be held in comptempt [and/or charged with disrupting court operations]."  Whereupon, if President Monson persists in Erik's/Five Solas' suggested (demanded?) course of action, His Honor then will say, "Officers, remove the Defendant."  And that will be that. And a few dozen papers the next day will have the page-one, above-the-fold, 72-point headline:

 

MORMON PRESIDENT CITED FOR CONTEMPT, HELD FOR MENTAL EVALUATION!

 

 

And millions of people worldwide, upon reading that headline and the accompanying account of the proceedings, will say, "Yep!  I knew Mormons are nuts!  This just proves it!"  And Erik and his like-minded fellows will think it's great!

Edited February 10, 2014 by Kenngo1969