why me Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) But Joseph and his companions were not locked inside the cells. They were accommodated in the jailer's own bedroom. And they were not incarcerated as criminals. They were confined therein ostensibly for their own protection.This is what I meant. I think that the problem with the "church hides or misleads" the members' idea is just what exactly do these words mean. I think that the words themselves are misleading when labelled against the church. I also think that if this case is deemed frivolous, there should be a possible lawsuit against the people who sponsored the lawsuit. My guess is that there won't be. That forgiveness will be given and maybe rightly so. Edited February 12, 2014 by why me
Abulafia Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) www.ukcriminallawblog.com/tag/summons/This might be of interest. Edited February 12, 2014 by Abulafia
canard78 Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) The tax thing is also a red herring. I do not know of any organisation that suggests when you gift aid you can get money back or that you should pay 20percent less because the taxman will be paying the difference! It is advertised as use gift aid so that your gift is worth even more to the charity. I'm not convinced that you can get money back either.I'm sure it varies by leader, but I've been taught by 2 different bishoprics to work out 10% and then deduct 20% of the donation (essentially 8%) because the gift aid (from your own tax bill) covers the rest. I've seen that in no official manual but I have a memory of them even handing out a calculation sheet but I can't remember if it was from church offices or their own. Some people choose to put the difference (the 2%) into fast offering. Like I said, I'm sure it varies by leader. Edited February 12, 2014 by canard78 1
CMZ Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) So: this is the "President Monsoon Summonsed to British Court For Smuggling A Pistol to Joseph Smith In Carthage Illinois" thread?Is this for real? Yes. And it is precisely that because Tom Phillips is claiming that President Monson (Monsoon?) needs to stand trial because Joseph Smith had a gun with him in the Carthage Jail and attempted to defend himself and his cellmates with said gun and therefore wasn't actually martyred. Clearly President Monson's fault. And clearly people shouldn't try to defend themselves and others from mob violence. Edited February 12, 2014 by CMZ 4
CMZ Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 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. Exactly. "Oh, you're coming to martyr me? By all means, go right ahead. I shall do nothing to thwart your efforts. I shall also do nothing to protect my friends." 3
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Yes. And it is precisely that because Tom Phillips is claiming that President Monson (Monsoon?) needs to stand trial because Joseph Smith had a gun with him in the Carthage Jail and attempted to defend himself and his cellmates with said gun and therefore wasn't actually martyred. Clearly President Monson's fault. And clearly people shouldn't try to defend themselves and others from mob violence. Exactly. "Oh, you're coming to martyr me? By all means, go right ahead. I shall do nothing to thwart your efforts. I shall also do nothing to protect my friends."Or, to apply saemo's thinking: "Oh, you're coming as a mob to martyr me? By all means, go right ahead. And when you've killed me, maybe, if they're lucky, you'll leave my friends alone, even though they're standing here with me right now and could stand as witnesses of the murder you commit." Edited February 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 4
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 I have heard a number of investigators and questioning members who said they had the impression it was balanced. I have no reason to believe they were lying though I was amazed they didn't see the bias I did.That's the way with sophistry. On it's face, it might appear to be balanced and fair, but in reality it is not. Sophistry, according to one online definition, is "the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false." Slanted presentation of information is an instance of sophistry. 3
why me Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Exactly. "Oh, you're coming to martyr me? By all means, go right ahead. I shall do nothing to thwart your efforts. I shall also do nothing to protect my friends."What is often overlooked is that Joseph picked up the gun that Hyrum had after he saw his brother shot in the face, laying in blood, dead. All in the room were under threat with one person using his cane to beat back the mob. It would be wonderful if Thomas S. Monson went to trial and spoke with such force about this injustice experienced by the founder of the lds church. And how the lds church is still facing persecution by internet mobs. 1
why me Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Or, to apply saemo's thinking: "Oh, you're coming as a mob to martyr me? By all means, go right ahead. And when you've killed me, maybe, if they're lucky, you'll leave my friends alone, even though they're standing here with me right now and could stand as witnesses of the murder you commit."And let us not forget that John Taylor was also shot but saved by his watch. Lets not hide that fact. 1
Calm Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 And let us not forget that John Taylor was also shot but saved by his watch. Lets not hide that fact.I believe they determined the watch was actually broken by his fall. It was a logical conclusion, but a close forensic examination said otherwise.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Get back on topic, or I'm going to unleash a computer virus that will blast Mo-Tab, full-blast, from your computer speakers, 24/7, people! P.S.: Welcome to the hybrid thread discussing (1) the merits (or lack thereof) of the criminal summons issued to President Thomas S. Monson for allegedly violating the UK's 2006 Fraud Act, Tom Phillips, Mormon"Think," and related issues; (2) Joseph Smith's martyrdom, and whether anyone who is armed or who mounts a defense can be considered a martyr; (3) Whether the Church misrepresents its history in manuals; (4) Am I missing anything? After all, I wouldn't want to misrepresent the topic of the thread! (5) ... ? ...; anybody else want to throw in some various miscellany? (6) Hey! The Utah Jazz may be having a bad year, but they beat the Lakers last night (who, to be honest, are also having a bad year, but I don't care: beating the Lakers is beating the Lakers ... period). And my Jazz have won two in a row. Let's just change the title of this thread to Potpourri, Miscellaneous, Free-For-All!!! and be done with it!!! Edited February 12, 2014 by Kenngo1969 1
Kenngo1969 Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) That's the way with sophistry. On it's face, it might appear to be balanced and fair, but in reality it is not. Sophistry, according to one online definition, is "the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false." Slanted presentation of information is an instance of sophistry.See, Scott! I know you can post on-topic! This proves it! WhyMe, I've seen on-topic posts from you earlier in the thread! Calmoriah, same for you! Tom Phillips/Mormon"Think"/the Summons of President Monson/the potential implications of making religious belief and practice the subject of criminal prosecution!!! C'mon! We can do it!! P.S.: Yes, I'm blatantly board-nannying! Yes, I usually hate it when people do that! (But I'm trying to be good-natured about it!!!!!) Edited February 12, 2014 by Kenngo1969 3
Tacenda Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 The Utah Jazz? Has anyone read the newer biography of John Stockton? I need to get it. He's one of my family's favorite players, what I'd give to watch them all play again. When life seemed a lot less complicated. Btw, if I were JS I'd probably have had a difficult time not grabbing that pistol after seeing my brother shot in the face, poor Hyrum. And I didn't know that Joseph was stabbed once he'd fallen to the ground. Do they know if the men Joseph shot at died? And to chime in about the topic, I feel for Pres. Monson, I hope this isn't a black mark on his legacy. It's nothing he's done wrong. And I can now agree there are some very hateful ex Mormons who have turned bitter, that make those that are struggling look bad. I guess we can liken them to the mob going after Joseph and the church.
ALarson Posted February 12, 2014 Author Posted February 12, 2014 It was in the Wall Street Journal last night and I think it's a good article ("An Anti-Mormon Crusade in London"). Here's the link: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304104504579372792144210378 1
Popular Post Calm Posted February 12, 2014 Popular Post Posted February 12, 2014 Except it is blaming the judge and from what I read given the amount of time she challenged him, etc. it sounds to me she was doing her best to dissuade him from filing but he insisted throughout and since he had filed the necessary paperwork she more or less had to if I understand Sheila correctly.So to include the judge in an "antimormon crusade" is unfair IMO. She was just doing her job.I wish US reporters didn't assume that the UK justice system functioned like ours and put more effort into getting the facts right. This is not the first time I've seen it. You would think the wigs would be a dead giveaway. 8
ALarson Posted February 12, 2014 Author Posted February 12, 2014 Except it is blaming the judge and from what I read given the amount of time she challenged him, etc. it sounds to me she was doing her best to dissuade him from filing but he insisted throughout and since he had filed the necessary paperwork she more or less had to if I understand Sheila correctly.So to include the judge in an "antimormon crusade" is unfair IMO. She was just doing her job.I wish US reporters didn't assume that the UK justice system functioned like ours and put more effort into getting the facts right. This is not the first time I've seen it. You would think the wigs would be a dead giveaway.I completely agree. It wasn't fair to include the judge. Your "wigs" comment made me laugh 1
rpn Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 I have been thinking about this and wondering whether discussion of the holes of the case, actually would help TP in the crusade. My understanding is that he will have to raise money to fund the lawsuit if the crown prosecutor doesn't take it over. (At first I thought sanity would prevail if the crown prosecutor took it over, but then how would TP fund the lawsuit otherwise?) Although he claims to have gotten an opinion from a UK law firm that he was on solid ground, he doesn't name the firm, and he presents no written opinion to back it up. (And we don't know if the firm is run by a disaffected mormon or what the firm was told.) I'm sure there are the same number of law firms in the UK as in the US, who when dangled with $300 million to collect (this is the number that was recently reported of how much tithes were collected in the UK by the church in the time frame), will tell a client how good the case is. What those folks typically will not do is to put that opinion in writing. And TP has not said he is represented by any barrister (the kind of UK lawyer who handles litigation).
Kenngo1969 Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) ... And to chime in about the topic, I feel for Pres. Monson, I hope this isn't a black mark on his legacy. It's nothing he's done wrong. And I can now agree there are some very hateful ex Mormons who have turned bitter, that make those that are struggling look bad. I guess we can liken them to the mob going after Joseph and the church.Others may disagree, but I don't think that anything anyone else does to someone can tarnish that person's legacy: it's only when that person does something he should not or fails to do something he should that his legacy is tarnished. Perhaps he snarls at his grandchildren in private , but I don't see how this criminal proceeding can tarnish his legacy: I believe that his reaction on a personal level (if he has any public reaction at all, which he may not; although he is a public figure, his personal reaction to this criminal proceeding is a private matter unless he decides otherwise) will be to respond with his usual class, grace, and aplomb, to turn the other cheek, and to wish that those with enough venom flowing through their veins to resort to something like this will find the peace they so desperately need without having to destroy the object(s) of their animus to do it. (And it will probably increase public sympathy for him and for the Church even among people who think that the Church of Jesus Christ is a fairytale. ) And yes, I do believe that the actions of Phillips, et al, have done (and will do) no favors for those in the Church of Jesus Christ who desire (and struggle) to remain faithful despite whatever questions they may have about, or whatever issues they may have with, the Church. That's how Mormon"Think" was originally "sold," and that particular bit of "advertising" now has been exposed for what it is: a lie. (Which, I'll hasten to add, is not a knock on you, Tacenda. ) Edited February 12, 2014 by Kenngo1969
Kenngo1969 Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 ... I wish US reporters didn't assume that the UK justice system functioned like ours and put more effort into getting the facts right. This is not the first time I've seen it. You would think the wigs would be a dead giveaway. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969]. ROFLMREO!
Kenngo1969 Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 It was in the Wall Street Journal last night and I think it's a good article ("An Anti-Mormon Crusade in London"). Here's the link: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304104504579372792144210378Phillips, et al, can dress it up, can protest vociferously to the contrary, and can attempt to resort to legal argument all they want, but that's exactly what this is: an anti-Mormon crusade. Good on The Wall Street Journal for calling a spade a spade. 2
ALarson Posted February 12, 2014 Author Posted February 12, 2014 Not a lawsuit...it is criminal charges.Yes. That's important to understand and remember. Thanks.
Abulafia Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Okay, I'll say one thing about the earliest christian practice of martyrdom (and I guess it is on topic in a way because it is one of the 5 points where Tom specifically deals with items of church history). Jesus, was crucified, we are told willingly. He didn't fight back, he was innocent of any crime, and he told Peter to put away his sword. That account wasn't forgotten and the very earliest martyrs also went to their deaths in similitude of the sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth. They didn't fight back. Ignatius is a very early example, who used his walk to martyrdom to teach, (whether you agree with him or not), to admonish and to set an example of peaceful and passive resistance. It worked. The christian movement grew for one reason or another, and even fierce critics like Galen would later comment on this aspect of Christian practice as something he 'did' admire, along with all the other things that he didn't.The information about Joseph's (unjust) assassination is worth teaching to investigators I think, but in a more balanced fashion. If he is portrayed as an innocent participant, a lamb to the slaughter, slayed simply for not wishing to deny the Book of Mormon (someone pm'd me with that reason yesterday as if it were historical fact), then members will be disappointed when they find out the messier and more complex history. Lambs don't carry guns. 2
Abulafia Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 This is an excerpt from the link I posted back in the thread. Prosecuting the President of the MormonsWe reported that the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Thomas S Monson, had been summoned by District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court next month to defend the Church’s doctrines. A disaffected former Mormon, Tom Phillips, had taken out a private prosecution alleging that asking members of the Church to make financial contributions while promoting theological doctrines which “might be untrue or misleading” could be a breach of the Fraud Act 2006.The likelihood of Mr Monson appearing in court to answer the charge is, one would have thought, zilch; moreover, unless he were to do so voluntarily, the only way that the matter could be proceeded with further is by the UK Government applying for his extradition. And even if the Crown Prosecution Service were prepared to take the matter further it would presumably be blocked in the US courts by the First Amendment on the “free exercise” of religion.The whole story verges on the bizarre, not least because in order to establish fraud there has to be an element of dishonesty. And just because most readers of this blog are unlikely to believe the teachings of the LDS, why should it be assumed that the President of the LDS does not? But be that as it may, the immediate result was another crack-of-dawn start for Frank in order to be interviewed at 7.30 on Radio 4′s Sunday programme.http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2014/02/09/religion-and-law-round-up-9th-february/ I haven't listened to the Radio show yet, but will give it a listen.What has struck me, in watching the coverage over here, is just how little the press know about Mormonism.
Recommended Posts