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

[Abulafia]

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.

Why me, I've bolded the part that stuck out.   I think what a lot of disaffected Mormons are saying is that they believed, based on the withholding of information from the church.  That information that was withheld would have been pertinent to assessing the historical truth claims of the church.  

Perhaps Sheilauk can interject here.  In my very little experience of the English courts, I have a feeling that the last two items (6000 year old earth and we all being descended from 2 individuals) were included to argue against vindictiveness or maliciousness to the church specifically.   

I know that when writing a will and if one excludes a son or daughter, say, then the will can be contested. However, if the will leaves a small amount to the son/daughter, say £5000, then this can not so easily be contested.  

I'm not sure if that would transfer to this case, but I don't see why it wouldn't.

As for the other 5 items, then I think a good case can be made that the information is pertinent to a person joining or rejecting the truth claims of the church.  All the church would need to do to cover their backs, if they are found to be operating outside of the law, would be to direct investigators to 'read the small print' or such like.   A web-site or leaflet that covers the points mentioned.

 

That would be honest, and then no one can say they were duped.  I can tell you from interacting with many ex and post mormons over the last 10 years that many feel 'duped'.  It is a problem.   

[Buzzard]

 

That would be honest, and then no one can say they were duped.  I can tell you from interacting with many ex and post mormons over the last 10 years that many feel 'duped'.  It is a problem.   

What a coincidence. I can tell you from interacting with many active, faithful, Latter-Day-Saints over the past 50+ years, most of whom are aware of the issues that cause such gnashing of teeth among the departed, that they don't feel duped. Different perspective, different observations. 

[Abulafia]

What a coincidence. I can tell you from interacting with many active, faithful, Latter-Day-Saints over the past 50+ years, most of whom are aware of the issues that cause such gnashing of teeth among the departed, that they don't feel duped. Different perspective, different observations. 

Buzzard, you can huff and puff all you want, you can throw stones at those 'gnashers of teeth'  (yes I do get the nasty swipe you made there), but there are people that feel like important information was withheld from them.  

Let's separate this from long time, multi-generational members, perhaps from Utah and a British Convert.  

Edited February 10, 2014 by Abulafia

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Buzzard, you can huff and puff all you want, you can throw stones at those 'gnashers of teeth'  (yes I do get the nasty swipe you made there), but there are people that feel like important information was withheld from them.  

Let's separate this from long time, multi-generational members, perhaps from Utah and a British Convert.  

Did you know that JS had a gun at Carthage?

[Tacenda]

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.

No, the ex-Mormons don't want to change the church, they just want the church to be honest.  Once that happens, they will leave the church alone.  They want their family & friends to see what they have, without it looking like they read anti false information.  They just want to be exonerated.  They want their families/friend back.  They don't want the superficial relationship that is based on "love the sinner" approach.  It's all they want.  Once they can do that, they don't care what the church does.  When the church does that the wounds heal, the families are real, and Jesus can be put back in it.  Because He is on the side of truth.   

[Kenngo1969]

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. . . .   

 

 

You've essentially called the man a coward without using the word, Erik.  Since you didn't actually use the word, I gave you the benefit of a minimal doubt by calling it a veiled insult.  You can keep trying to pee on our legs and tell us it's raining, if you like, but I'm not buying it.

 

 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. 

 

Yeah.  OK.  Except that you have.  (Pee isn't rain ...)

 

 

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

 

As Halconero has pointed out so ably, I'm not suggesting President Monson lacks moral agency.  He certainly could do what you have suggested (or at least, he could try to do so).  As I've pointed out in another reply, though, if he did so, opposing counsel would immediately object, whereupon the judge would sustain the objection, would warn President Monson that he would be held in contempt if he continued, would have him carted off to jail if he did continue, and newspapers everywhere would have front-page, above-the-fold, 72-point headlines about the "Bat Crap Crazy" Mormon President the next day (and some headlines would use that exact phrase, except, perhaps, for substituting a stronger word for the second one).

 

That would serve no one's purposes except yours and your like-minded fellows', Erik.

[Abulafia]

Did you know that JS had a gun at Carthage?

When my parents joined in 1970, of course they didn't know this. They were taught the same history as I myself taught as a missionary 12 years later.

[ALarson]

No, the ex-Mormons don't want to change the church, they just want the church to be honest.  Once that happens, they will leave the church alone.  They want their family & friends to see what they have, without it looking like they read anti false information.  They just want to be exonerated.  They want their families/friend back.  They don't want the superficial relationship that is based on "love the sinner" approach.  It's all they want.  Once they can do that, they don't care what the church does.  When the church does that the wounds heal, the families are real, and Jesus can be put back in it.  Because He is on the side of truth.   

Very well stated, Tacenda.  I was inactive for a few years after I discovered much of the church's history that I had not been taught. (And, please don't get into it NOT being hidden as I get that it was always there for those who dug deep enough to find it..."taught" is the keyword in the previous sentence.).

 

I now have a renewed testimony and believe things in a much more symbolic vs. literal manner.  It works for me and it makes my wife happy.  There is much that I love about the church and I enjoy my ward.

 

However, I do know of many who are struggling and who are only asking that the church start teaching more of the true history in the Sunday lessons and speaking it from the pulpit. Just so that members who aren't aware of these truths will at least know maybe why they're struggling even if others still choose to believe and remain active.  I agree that's all most of them want.

 

The new essays are a wonderful step in the right direction.   Now they just need to use these essays in lessons and GC talks, etc.

Edited February 10, 2014 by ALarson

[why me]

When my parents joined in 1970, of course they didn't know this. They were taught the same history as I myself taught as a missionary 12 years later.

I remember last year sunday school class when the teacher announced that for the first time she read that Joseph Smith had a gun. She said that she never knew this. But guess where she read it? In the D&C teacher's manual and it wasn't a recent manual. She was surprised that past teachers did not mention it.

 

But it was in the manual. What to do? What should the church do? Say that it is a must to teach it?

[ALarson]

I remember last year sunday school class when the teacher announced that for the first time she read that Joseph Smith had a gun. She said that she never knew this. But guess where she read it? In the D&C teacher's manual and it wasn't a recent manual. She was surprised that past teachers did not mention it.

 

But it was in the manual. What to do? What should the church do? Say that it is a must to teach it?

It was actually in the manual?  Wow?  I'm impressed and would love to read this.  I wish more would include it in their lessons if it's in the manual.

 

CFR please.

[why me]

Very well stated, Tacenda.  I was inactive for a few years after I discovered much of the church's history that I had not been taught. (And, please don't get into it NOT being hidden as I get that it was always there for those who dug deep enough to find it..."taught" is the keyword in the previous sentence.).

 

I have a question. Why is it that only the lds need to learn a comprehensive history of the lds church? Should the lds have a history class on Thursday nights for all those interested? Should the lds have a history class during sunday school for all those interested? I find it amazing how the lds church need to teach a comprehensive history whereas other churches can avoid such a history class for their members. How many anglicans know their history in the UK and did they learn it at church or by reading an independent hisory book of anglicanism written by a scholar? 

[ALarson]

I have a question. Why is it that only the lds need to learn a comprehensive history of the lds church?

Who said that "only the lds need to learn a comprehensive history"?  I think all religions should do this and have more transparency.  So, I think we agree on this.

[why me]

No, the ex-Mormons don't want to change the church, they just want the church to be honest.  Once that happens, they will leave the church alone. 

This is not true. No church that I know of has written a comprehensive history of their church. Most history is written by independent scholars and not by a church headquarters. Mormons are more than free to read RSR. It was in Desseret Books. Nothing hidden in that book. Or they could read another independently written lds history account written by a scholar. Why is it the lds churches responsibility to give church history lessons.

 

The exmormon critics will never  be satisfied. Too many historical interpretations to argue over. What interpretation does the church need to give to make them completely happy?

[Tacenda]

I have a question. Why is it that only the lds need to learn a comprehensive history of the lds church? Should the lds have a history class on Thursday nights for all those interested? Should the lds have a history class during sunday school for all those interested? I find it amazing how the lds church need to teach a comprehensive history whereas other churches can avoid such a history class for their members. How many anglicans know their history in the UK and did they learn it at church or by reading an independent hisory book of anglicanism written by a scholar? 

Maybe not a Thursday night history class but at least a pamphlet!!!  (Whenever I say pamphlet now, I can't help but remember the movie "The Best Two Years" when Kirby's role said that he believed JS was a pamphlet, but meant to say prophet.)  And I'll bet the church wished they had provided that pamphlet before all this came about with TP and the summons.  Then they could point the courts to it!   

[why me]

Who said that "only the lds need to learn a comprehensive history"?  I think all religions should do this and have more transparency.  So, I think we agree on this.

These terms are too generalized. I know of no other church under such pressure to teach a comprehensive to their members. The question is how often should people be learning lds history? Once a year? Every other year? What historical issues should an investigator be taught? Should an investigator have a one year history class and take an exam to make sure that all was understood. Should an investigator be exposed to two or three interpretations and study the MT website? What would the critics like?

[ALarson]

It was actually in the manual?  Wow?  I'm impressed and would love to read this.  I wish more would include it in their lessons if it's in the manual.

 

CFR please.

why me, CFR....thanks. 

[why me]

It was actually in the manual?  Wow?  I'm impressed and would love to read this.  I wish more would include it in their lessons if it's in the manual.

 

CFR please.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-32-to-seal-the-testimony?lang=eng

 

“From the holes in his [clothing], it appears evident that a ball must have been thrown from without, through the window, which entered his back on the right side, and passing through, lodged against his watch. … At the same instant the ball from the door entered his nose.

“As he struck the floor he exclaimed emphatically, ‘I am a dead man.’ Joseph looked towards him and responded, ‘Oh, dear brother Hyrum!’ and opening the door two or three inches with his left hand, discharged one barrel of a six shooter (pistol) at random in the entry. … A ball [from the musket of one of the mob] grazed Hyrum’s breast, and entering his throat passed into his head, while other muskets were aimed at him and some balls hit him.

“Joseph continued snapping his revolver round the casing of the door into the space as before … , while Mr. Taylor with a walking stick stood by his side and knocked down the bayonets and muskets which were constantly discharging through the doorway. …

“When the revolver failed, we had no more firearms, and expected an immediate rush of the mob, and the doorway full of muskets, half way in the room, and no hope but instant death from within.

 

Maybe I am now a little crazy from defending the church for ten years but I really just don't get the problem with critics. It is like a contagious sickness: Members read what the critics say, believe them hook line and sinker and complain about not knowing this or that. And yet, it is in the manual. The problem is very simple: no time to teach all that is in the manual. And it is the teachers choice.

 

And yet, there is my dear friend, Abu saying that it is not in the manual and it is hidden.

Edited February 10, 2014 by why me

[ALarson]

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-32-to-seal-the-testimony?lang=eng

 

“From the holes in his [clothing], it appears evident that a ball must have been thrown from without, through the window, which entered his back on the right side, and passing through, lodged against his watch. … At the same instant the ball from the door entered his nose.

“As he struck the floor he exclaimed emphatically, ‘I am a dead man.’ Joseph looked towards him and responded, ‘Oh, dear brother Hyrum!’ and opening the door two or three inches with his left hand, discharged one barrel of a six shooter (pistol) at random in the entry. … A ball [from the musket of one of the mob] grazed Hyrum’s breast, and entering his throat passed into his head, while other muskets were aimed at him and some balls hit him.

“Joseph continued snapping his revolver round the casing of the door into the space as before … , while Mr. Taylor with a walking stick stood by his side and knocked down the bayonets and muskets which were constantly discharging through the doorway. …

“When the revolver failed, we had no more firearms, and expected an immediate rush of the mob, and the doorway full of muskets, half way in the room, and no hope but instant death from within.

 

Maybe I am now a little crazy from defending the church for ten years but I really just don't get the problem with critics. It is like a contagious sickness: Members read what the critics say, believe them hook line and sinker and complain about not knowing this or that. And yet, it is in the manual. The problem is very simple: no time to teach all that is in the manual. And it is the teachers choice.

Thanks why me for posting this.  I wonder why teachers don't include this?  I doubt it's a matter of no time to discuss it as I think members would find it fascinating.   I know I would have.  I do know that I have not ever heard this discussed in a Gospel Doctrine class on church history (or in any other lesson).  So the bigger question might be why? 

Edited February 10, 2014 by ALarson

[halconero]

No, the ex-Mormons don't want to change the church, they just want the church to be honest.  Once that happens, they will leave the church alone.  They want their family & friends to see what they have, without it looking like they read anti false information.  They just want to be exonerated.  They want their families/friend back.  They don't want the superficial relationship that is based on "love the sinner" approach.  It's all they want.  Once they can do that, they don't care what the church does.  When the church does that the wounds heal, the families are real, and Jesus can be put back in it.  Because He is on the side of truth.   

 

Many ex-mormons would love to see the church destroyed, would love to see what their friends cherish brought down, and would still obsess, analyze and look at everything the church does.

 

There are a number who are as you say, but let's not say that all of them are. 

[why me]

Maybe not a Thursday night history class but at least a pamphlet!!!  (Whenever I say pamphlet now, I can't help but remember the movie "The Best Two Years" when Kirby's role said that he believed JS was a pamphlet, but meant to say prophet.)  And I'll bet the church wished they had provided that pamphlet before all this came about with TP and the summons.  Then they could point the courts to it!   

Do you really think that a pamphlet is going to satisfy the critics? The only think that will satisfy a critic is for each and every member and investigator does a yearly study of the MT site. And if they are still convinced that the church is true, they are then welcome to join and never again complain of not knowing this or that.

[ALarson]

Do you really think that a pamphlet is going to satisfy the critics?.

The essays are a good way to get the truth out but now they need to include them in lessons and talks from the leaders.  I'm hoping that will happen. I'm also hoping that they'll continue writing them.

Edited February 10, 2014 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

Many ex-mormons would love to see the church destroyed, would love to see what their friends cherish brought down, and would still obsess, analyze and look at everything the church does.

 

There are a number who are as you say, but let's not say that all of them are. 

Got it, I guess I just know from my stand point and many others.  Could these ex Mormons that you speak of, have been treated so unfairly by the church or family/friends, that they are out for revenge?  There has got to be a reason for it, possibly.  Or not.  I'll give you that Halcenero. 

[Kenngo1969]

No, the ex-Mormons don't want to change the church, they just want the church to be honest.  Once that happens, they will leave the church alone.  

 

ROFLMREO, ROFLMREO, ROFLMREO, ROFLMREO, ROFLMREO, ROFLMREO, ROFLMREO, ROFLMREO!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Baloney!  Sorry, Tacenda, but you'll never convince me that these peoples' motives are in any way so noble or benign. You've drunk the Kool-Aid if you believe that, Sister!  If that were true, they would have lauded the recent updates to certain topics at LDS.org, would have expressed the hope that such updates will continue and pledged to watch further developments with interest, and would have left it at that.  If they get any sort of admission from the Church of Jesus Christ or its leaders, that will be the blood in the water, and the rest of the sharks who feel as they do but who have been waiting on the sidelines for this thing to play out will move in for the kill!  

 

They want their family & friends to see what they have, without it looking like they read anti false information. 

 

 

Oh, please!  This isn't just about what information people are willing to consider!  It's about the conclusions they've drawn from that information.  There are plenty of people, on this site and elsewhere in the world of Mormon apologetics, who have researched that same information, yet have drawn diametrically different conclusions from it.  Phillips and his ilk will never be satisfied unless and until the vast majority of people who "consider that information" have reached the same conclusions the Mormon"Think" crowd has!  

 

They just want to be exonerated. 

 

But President Monson, because he's the head the Head of the Evil Empire, doesn't deserve to be exonerated, is that it?    (Tacenda: "Whoa!  Wait!  I never called the Church an Evil Empire!"  No, you didn't, but what you don't realize is that most of the people to whom you've ascribed such benign and noble motives do see the Church exactly that way!)  Again, you're vastly underestimating their ultimate aim, Tacenda. And people who "just want to be exonerated" don't usually file criminal complaints against others.  They don't use the criminal justice system to stage publicity stunts.  The criminal justice system isn't the proper place for airing grievances that are based on religious truth claims.   

 

Don't get me wrong: I think those who are taken in by information promulgated by critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are misguided; I think they fall victim to presentism and to other fallacies; I think they're too willing to judge others by standards to which they refuse to hold themselves; I think they don't see other people and events as those people and events really are, but rather as they (that is, as those who are disaffected) are.   But none of that means that I hold any ill will toward them, and I think the same can be said of the vast majority of faithful members and apologists of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

They want their families/friend back. 

 

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but it's been my experience that when I lose the association of family and friends based on differing levels of belief in and commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ, it's not because I'm unwilling to maintain the relationship. Are some people in the Church too judgmental?  Yes.  (Welcome to the human race.)  But many people outside the Church are also too judgmental, and I've found that if I'm unwilling to believe as they do or unwilling to alter my lifestyle in ways that are inconsistent with what the Church teaches (although I'm not saying that the only reason for their disaffection is a desire to sin), that has more to do with our estrangement than anything else.  

 

They don't want the superficial relationship that is based on "love the sinner" approach. 

 

There's nothing "superficial" about the "love the sinner" approach, Tacenda.  If that were true, then all love would be superficial, because we're all sinners.  (Yes, I know some people are "holier than thou," and yes, I know that's a sin, too.) As a parent, do you approve of absolutely everything your children do?  (I hope not!)  But does that mean you love them any less?  Again, I hope not!  Why would you think God would be any different?

 

Once they can do that, they don't care what the church does. 

 

 

 

But the Church has clarified its stance on various issues of concern to the disaffected at at LDS.org, and yet the most militant of the disaffected still are not satisfied.  The most militantly disaffected will never be satisfied until the Church of Jesus Christ as we know it ceases to exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

When the church does that the wounds heal, the families are real, and Jesus can be put back in it. 

 

Real life inflicts real wounds on all real people, all the time, Tacenda, both people inside and outside the Church of Jesus Christ.  Real families, both inside and outside the Church, have real problems all the time, Tacenda.  The Church can't take away the problems.  It can only offer what it sees as the best way to deal with those problems.  And wounds will never heal as long as the people who suffer them are determined to pick at scabs.  And as for whether Jesus needs to be "put back into" the Church of Jesus Christ, I guess we'll simply have to disagree about whether he ever left.

 

Because He is on the side of truth.

 

 

Yes, He is.  I guess we'll simply have to disagree about how we interpret that proposition as well.  If you don't think the truth can be found in the Church of Jesus Christ, no one can stop you from searching for it elsewhere. 

Edited February 10, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[ALarson]

 

ROFLMREO, ROFLMREO, ROFLMREO, ROFLMREO, ROFL: ROFLMREO, :ROFLMREO, ROFLMREO, ROFLMREO!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Baloney!  Sorry, Tacenda, but you'll never convince me that these peoples' motives are in any way so noble or benign.

You know Kenngo, that really isn't very nice to post.  I know of many inactives who would never want to destroy the church but only want the truth to come out.  If members still choose to believe in the church and attend, that is fine with them.  I know that I was there for a few years before I came back and I never wanted destruction of the church.

 

No one can accurately paint the exMormons with a broad brush anymore than one can use that same brush to paint TBMs.  

[Kenngo1969]

... The exmormon critics will never  be satisfied. Too many historical interpretations to argue over. What interpretation does the church need to give to make them completely happy?

 

The one that paints past events, as well as the involvement of leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in those events, in the worst light possible.  For example, "Brigham Young directly ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre," "Every President of the Church of Jesus Christ from Brigham Young through Joseph Fielding Smith was a racist," and so on. Thanks for asking.  You're welcome.  Glad I could clear that up for you!