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

[why me]

Whyme, why do you do that? Check my response to MRSR, I even included the date my parents were baptized, 1970. I served a mission in 1982.

I think that it will depend just when it was put in the manual. I have a feeling that it was always in the manual, even as far back as the 70s. But we would need an expert to check that out via the internet. I don't have the skill.

[ALarson]

100% serious. I could share so anecdotes, but they would be just that.

I won't pretend that they're significant in number, so I'll repeat what I said before: exmormons, like any group, are not homogenous in their motivations, ideals, and histories. Many are as you describe them.

Those would be interesting to hear...pretty crazy!

 

I completely agree with your statement about exmormons.

[halconero]

I wonder if critics have a problem with Peter cutting off the ear of Malchus when Jesus got arrested

Jesus most certainly did.

[why me]

I disagree regarding "if not all of the critics".  I've had discussions with members of my ward over most of these essays (we have an ongoing conversation happening with the essays).  My Bishop even has joined in at times.  These essays have helped many in this group (but they have also caused one member to stop attending).  

These members are not critics. I do think that the critics wish to destroy the church. It would make life much easier for them. I think that this may also be behind the court case. I am sure that the essays are helping. When the church gives its interpretation, members will be helped. And the lds interpretations are good ones. But the critics will not be satisfied. On critic boards the essays are being ridiculed. Or they say it is too little too late.

[Abulafia]

Jesus most certainly did.

Good one!

[why me]

You can't be serious 

 

We definitely have not known the same inactives then.  Most I know are hurting and are searching for help and answers.  Some are angry, yes.  But not to the extent you describe above.  Wow.

Why are they hurting? We now have the JSPs and much more. And the interpretations from the church are good ones. But I can understand the problem. I said many years ago that the lds church was presenting its history like a soviet textbook on soviet history and church biographies of Joseph Smith were written like soviet biographies of lenin.

 

And this has been the problem. Hopefully, this will change. Reading RSR, I came to a greater appreciation of Joseph Smith. Such a short life and he accomplished so much.

[Kenngo1969]

I have been branded a bully for refusing to suffer wolves-who-attempt-to-disguise-their-true-motives-by-dressing-in-sheeps'-clothing gladly.  (I should have expected as much.)  I have a suggestion for all of those who wish to avoid being "bullied" by folks like me: if you're going to ally yourselves with individuals or groups whose aims would fundamentally alter (at best) if not totally destroy (at worst) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you'd best make sure you fully understand the motives of those individuals or groups, and you'd best make absolutely sure that those putatively "noble and benign" motives are really as pure, as noble, and as benign as you think they are.

 

Fair or not, people are going to judge you by the company you keep, and even if your motives are purer, nobler, and more benign than those of the individuals or groups with which you ally, it's difficult (if not impossible) to make that clear enough in the minds of those you think are mistaking your motives. 

[Tacenda]

Why are they hurting? We now have the JSPs and much more. And the interpretations from the church are good ones. But I can understand the problem. I said many years ago that the lds church was presenting its history like a soviet textbook on soviet history and church biographies of Joseph Smith were written like soviet biographies of lenin.

And this has been the problem. Hopefully, this will change. Reading RSR, I came to a greater appreciation of Joseph Smith. Such a short life and he accomplished so much.

Thanks for the acknowledgement that the church has possibly rewritten history (my words). Makes me feel a little less crazy. I wish I could move on from here, become less stagnant find another church, but the culture is holding me where I stand, I'm afraid. And afraid I'll run into the same problem all over again, I'd like to keep attending the LDS church, but hoping for it to be more mainstream Christanity. Which is like trying to change the church, I admit. Just as I believe the church tried to do in the Hinckley phase and is probably why some things were correlated out of the church manuals, IMO. We no longer wanted to be peculiar, IMO. Pres. Hinckley was very into PR, I can't think of any other President willing to let it all hang out with Larry King, though he did tone down the Lorenzo Snow couplet in a huge way. It would be nice to have our doctrine put forth strongly not timidly, since that particular doctrine is a big facet of Mormonism, IMO.

[canard78]

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.

 

Did anyone answer this?

 

The institute manual has it (including images of the two pistols).

http://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-twenty-two-the-martyrdom?lang=eng

 

When this was taught last year, the teacher (who's aware I've studied the topic) asked me to do a summary of the events. Using solely LDS sources (and a lot of trawling through the website) I was able to cover off:

 

- Pistols in Carthage

- Destruction of the printing press

- The Expositor

- The legitimate summons for the whole Nauvoo City council to stand trial for destroying the press, followed by their release on bail

- The denial of bail to Joseph on Hyrum based on false accusations of treason (due to them being accused of raising a militia against the county)

 

The teachers manual has a very brief passing reference to it: 

 

 

“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.

 

 

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

 

So pistols in carthage are indeed in the manuals. But it was still a bit of a shock to me when I found out a couple of years ago.

 

EDIT:

 

Here's the link to the slides I presented in the class:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_y3yYkzKCLtdHNnelpiaXR5cW8/edit?usp=sharing

 

Like I said, all content from LDS.org (except the images, I think some of those were from google).

Edited February 10, 2014 by canard78

[Thinking]

So pistols in carthage are indeed in the manuals. But it was still a bit of a shock to me when I found out a couple of years ago.

 

This critic has no issue with the presence of pistols. What is funny to me is how frequently critics are criticized by apologists for leaving...relevant...things...out...of...quotes. Yet the LDS Church has done the very same thing with its history.

[canard78]

This critic has no issue with the presence of pistols. What is funny to me is how frequently critics are criticized by apologists for leaving...relevant...things...out...of...quotes. Yet the LDS Church has done the very same thing with its history.

 

Like this you mean:

 

 

I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child … shall pay one-tenth of their income as a tithing.

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, 2011, Chapter 12

 

 

I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child who has means shall pay one tenth of their income as a tithing.

What he originally said

[Gray]

Next up: suing the local Orthodox Rabbi because Moses probably wasn't a historical person

[Kenngo1969]

Next up: suing the local Orthodox Rabbi because Moses probably wasn't a historical person

Yup.  People who talk about slippery slopes and floodgates opening usually are ridiculed as alarmists by the allegedly more-erudite.  But if Phillips, et al, prevail (or even if a judge allows President Monson to be tried) that's exactly what will happen.

[Gray]

Yup.  People who talk about slippery slopes and floodgates opening usually are ridiculed as alarmists by the allegedly more-erudite.  But if Phillips, et al, prevail (or even if a judge allows President Monson to be tried) that's exactly what will happen.

This would never stand up in a US court (either the actual "fraud" charges or a hypothetical against a rabbi). I have no idea how British courts operate though.

[Kenngo1969]

No that's fine...but I don't really like seeing the laughing at others or personal attacks.  But, to each his own and I do get the anger over all of this.  It's pretty ridiculous and has potential to cause pain and damage.  I think it'll go no where fast.  

If you think my response to Tacenda was an attack, then, with all due respect, you don't understand it.  I happen to like Tacenda on a personal level (or at least her Cyber-persona, since we've never met in real life).  That said, while I'm more than willing to allow that Tacenda's motives are noble, pure, and benign, the same cannot be said of the folks with whom she has cast her lot.  And the naivete of anyone who thinks otherwise (even if they don't share the motives of Phillips, et al), with all due respect, deserves to be laughed at.  If you want to dismiss my post to Tacenda because of its alleged "tone" (my word), that is your prerogative.  But there is plenty of substance in it that I think you would be mistaken to dismiss so blithely.

[flameburns623]

Not even a salesperson selling soap products door-to-door is required to give the sort of "full disclosure" which would satisfy the alienated disaffected former members of any religious movement.

The soap salesman is NOT required to tell prospective customers what his competitors say about his product.

The soapy salesman is NOT required to mention that among the "all-natural" and FDA-approved substances in his soap is a compound which has been banned in other far-flung lands.

The salesman is not required to tell the stories of two or three persons who claim to have been sickened by said banned compound--but whose claims have never been established in court.

The salesman is not required to refer the prospects to websites of environmental groups who are militating for the removal of this compound; nor mention that said activists regularly hold protests at the corporate headquarters of said soap products.

The soap salesman is allowed to say to prospects only such things as will likely encourage them to choose his products. And if for some reason the manufacturer reformulates the soap to exclude the suspect compound--even if said compound is never established as dangerous to public health--the salesman will not be required to trumpet said reformulary.

And history, being an art more than a science, vulnerable to subjective interpretations and which necessarily must pick and choose among it's data points, is even more difficult for a court to arbitrate.

I doubt seriously that the British courts will want to wade in and decree what elements of LDS history must be discussed in order to establish 'full disclosure'. I expect that if it goes so far, the British courts will be satisfied for the Church to establish that alternative sources are readily available and ever have been, that no INTERESTED LDS convert (not all are necessarily interested in deep history lessons, theological wrangling, or the latest scurrilous interpersonal gossip about the Osmond family) need be bereft of critical resources as well as friendly in weighing decisions about the Mormon Church.

If the courts WERE to get so involved, they will be setting before themselves precedent for a very long series of similar actions against religious bodies with much longer and equally controversial histories.

Then, after litigating all of that, they can start on soap salesmen and submarine sandwich advertisers.

Are judges in Britain concerned about job security? If not, I expect an early dismissal.

[Kenngo1969]

This would never stand up in a US court (either the actual "fraud" charges or a hypothetical against a rabbi). I have no idea how British courts operate though.

Plenty of observers of the UK legal scene (SheilaUK, who posts here, among them, although she's much more than simply an observer) are astounded that Phillips' complaint has even gotten this far in the UK.  As for your contention that nothing similar is apt ever to happen in a US court, as much as I hate to say this, "Never say never."  The Supremes made exactly the wrong majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith, and U.S. religious jurisprudence has been trending in the wrong direction ever since.  

[Kenngo1969]

Posted Today, 01:23 PM

Thinking, on 10 Feb 2014 - 1:19 PM, said:

This critic has no issue with the presence of pistols. What is funny to me is how frequently critics are criticized by apologists for leaving...relevant...things...out...of...quotes. Yet the LDS Church has done the very same thing with its history.

 

Like this you mean:

 

 

Quote

I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child … shall pay one-tenth of their income as a tithing.

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, 2011, Chapter 12

 

 

Quote

I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child who has means shall pay one tenth of their income as a tithing.

What he originally said

 

With due respect, I don’t think there’s as much “there” there as you seem to suggest.  The phrase “who has means” could simply be interpreted as anyone who earns income.  If you have income, you pay tithing on it; if you don’t, you don’t.  Simple.  I believe this is the interpretation is consistent with how the Church of Jesus Christ interprets the principle of Tithing today, and I think omitting that clause was done simply out of a desire to avoid sending lessons “into the weeds” vis-à-vis discussing every potential meaning thereof.

 

Having said that, I think the Church’s treatment of its history and past teachings in its manuals (and how that treatment might be improved) is an excellent subject … for another thread.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[why me]

Thanks for the acknowledgement that the church has possibly rewritten history (my words). Makes me feel a little less crazy. I wish I could move on from here, become less stagnant find another church, but the culture is holding me where I stand, I'm afraid. And afraid I'll run into the same problem all over again, I'd like to keep attending the LDS church, but hoping for it to be more mainstream Christanity.

The church has not rewritten history. But they did choose to leave certain things out that was known before. Let me explain it this way. All knew that Joseph was a polygamist when the saints left for the west. After all some of joseph's wives went west. Also, people knew about the polyandry. Some of those wives went west too. The church members had very little problem with this. So, it must have been done above board. And not one of his wives ever said a bad word about him.

 

The church members knew history because they experienced it. But as time went on, and history went into the far past certain things were left unsaid which would be quite normal since those things no longer applied. Members knew much more in the past and they knew much more in the 1970s and in the 1980s. It has only been recently that certain things were not stressed. But the church has not lied. They haven't been in denial. Now, the history is coming back in fashion. And the church will be quite open with their history, in fact, it will probably one of the most open churches out there. I know of no other church that spends its time with its history like the lds church is doing now.

 

Why move on? The book of mormon has not been proven false and the 11 witnesses still have their testimony in the book of mormon. And what is more mainstream christian? Have you seen the history of mainstream christian churches? Not very pleasant at all.

Edited February 11, 2014 by why me

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

Like this you mean:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, That was a doozy. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

So pistols in carthage are indeed in the manuals. But it was still a bit of a shock to me when I found out a couple of years ago.

 

I still wonder why the idea of Joseph Smith having a firearm -- meager and inadequate as it was -- as protection for his friends and himself against a mob of armed thugs bent on murder should shock anyone.

 

And before anyone starts with me on this, no, I absolutely do not  believe that passive acceptance of death is necessary to make one eligible to be a martyr.

[halconero]

I still wonder why the idea of Joseph Smith having a firearm -- meager and inadequate as it was -- as protection for his friends and himself against a mob of armed thugs bent on murder should shock anyone.

 

And before anyone starts with me on this, no, I absolutely do not  believe that passive acceptance of death is necessary to make one eligible to be a martyr.

 

Because our culture has constructed an image of the passive martyr. An image which doesn't have any credence in our history, or in many other areas of the world.

[canard78]

I still wonder why the idea of Joseph Smith having a firearm -- meager and inadequate as it was -- as protection for his friends and himself against a mob of armed thugs bent on murder should shock anyone.

 

And before anyone starts with me on this, no, I absolutely do not  believe that passive acceptance of death is necessary to make one eligible to be a martyr.

 

If you read the link I included to the slideshow I prepared for last year's lesson, you'll see that I presented it positively, including the pistol. Even then, I noticed a few surprised faces in the class when it got the pistol section.

 

I have no issue at all with the pistol. Joseph died for his friends and died defending his friends. When I was preparing for the lesson the quote that resonated most with me was when he said (paraphrasing) "I am willing to die for my friends." When I spent time discovering the high tension of the situation and Joseph's willingness to walk into the lions den, to save his fellow-saints from being invaded by neighboring mobs, it filled me with admiration for him.

 

But I was still surprised when I first heard about it because I'd been an active member for 30+ years, had gone through seminary, never missed a Sunday school class in all that time and had somehow never heard about the pistol. So it was new information and, initially, painted a slightly different picture of the events of the day. Now, having learned more about the day, I prefer the more detailed version. I prefer the depiction of Joseph's character that comes out of it.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_y3yYkzKCLtdHNnelpiaXR5cW8/edit?usp=sharing

[MichelleD]

Calling Sheila.

Steve Benson (ugh!) has posted online a much more thorough outline and description of this case. I don't want to link to it (I'm on my phone anyway) but if you get a chance to read it, your expertise on it would be great to see posted here.

The title is:

"Details of criminal fraud case against Monson & co-provided by Tom Phillips"

Edited February 10, 2014 by MichelleD

[saemo]

I still wonder why the idea of Joseph Smith having a firearm -- meager and inadequate as it was -- as protection for his friends and himself against a mob of armed thugs bent on murder should shock anyone.

 

And before anyone starts with me on this, no, I absolutely do not  believe that passive acceptance of death is necessary to make one eligible to be a martyr.

An inmate possessing a firearm is a bit shocking.