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

[Abulafia]

Here's the direct link to the Radio Show.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03tr7hm

The segment starts at about 20.00 minutes in.
 

[canard78]

Here's the direct link to the Radio Show.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03tr7hm

The segment starts at about 20.00 minutes in.

 

 

I listened to this a few days ago.

 

As soon as he said "The Church of the Latter-day Saints" I knew we were in trouble

[Calm]

If that is the one that points out if it is a belief, it is theology whether or not it is stated as a statement of fact...I like it.

Not real up on the specific religion, but I think addressed the point well enough.

Great accents.

Edited February 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

This subject comes up every so often on this board. I regret that others seem determined to derail this thread with it, but I can't leave this post unresponded to.

 

Here's a link to a past thread on this topic. I will be quoting relevant posts here that I, and perhaps others, made on that thread back in 2007:

 

Anyone with an agrarian background will attest that animals, when they have the sense that they are in danger, are anything but passive. The die is cast for the lamb going to the slaughter, but that doesn't mean the lamb is passive during the procedure.

Similarly, I am convinced that the die was cast when Joseph Smith submitted to the authorities at Carthage, and my conviction is that the Prophet knew it. But that doesn't mean he was required to submit passively for the Bible imagery to apply, especially when caring friends who were with him were in danger themselves. (Suppose Peter, when standing with Christ at the time the soliders took him, was on the verge of being killed as well. Would Christ have done nothing to prevent the disciple's death? Who knows? There was much for Peter to accomplish in his life.)

If anything, Joseph's resistance devolves to the further condemnation of the mobbers who murdered him, as they had to try that much harder to carry out their evil deed.

 

 

Here's a good comment from alter idem:

 

No...this is a strange way to look at this situation. When Joseph made the statement of going "as a lamb to the slaughter" he was referring to going to Carthage and allowing himself to be taken by his enemies. He felt that he was walking into certain death--which he was.

Joseph and his companions were sitting ducks in an upper room of the Jail. They did not "kick a hornets nest"-- a murderous mob descended on them in the jail and at this point, Joseph made a futile attempt to defend himself and his friends by shooting back at those who were shooting at them. Why should his desire to defend himself and his companions make him something other than a martyr. A martyr is someone who seals his testimony with his blood. Joseph and Hyrum were made martyrs by a deranged mob who took advantage of their vulnerable situation.

 

Here's a post I made when somebody said Joseph "kicked a hornet's nest" by putting up a defense:

 

"Kicked the hornet's nest"?

That's ridiculous! What do you think the mobbers would have done had Joseph not tried to fend them off? Given him a stern talking-to and then left?

 

Here's how Daniel Peterson responded to the same comment that I responded to:

 

Yes, he certainly upset them. And to think that, until then, they were so serene and orderly!

I don't know that his attempted defense of his brother and his friends was hopeless. Many people, though filled with violent hatred, back down when they find themselves staring into hot lead. And, in fact, Willard Richards and John Taylor did actually, contrary to their own expectations, survive the onslaught of the mob.

Your response reminds me, though, of a small portion of an article that I wrote some years back, entitled "'Shall They Not Both Fall into the Ditch?' What Certain Baptists Think They Know about the Restored Gospel," FARMS Review 10/1 (1998):

http://maxwellinstit...o...10&number=1

I have a paragraph in a section of that lengthy essay that bears the subtitle "Fuel on the Fire of the Auto-da-F�?©" in which I rewrite the story of Joseph's murder along lines suggested by certain anti-Mormons.

 

To the remark that to be a martyr one must passively submit to death (which notion I reject, by the way), Daniel Peterson responded:

 

Which Joseph actually did. Both when he voluntarily recrossed the Mississippi to be taken into custody and when he went to the window at Carthage.

In the interim, though, he did not passively submit to the murder of his brother or to the attempted murder of the two innocent friends who were merely visiting him in the jail. To which I say Bravo.

 

 

Here's an insightful post from Bluebell:

 

To be fair, joseph said that he was going 'like a lamb to the slaughter' on his way to carthage jail, and his conduct on the way to said jail does fit in with the 'commonly understood meaning' of the phrase.

JS, as a mortal man, could not have guessed his reaction when faced with armed men firing at him and his loved ones in a confined space, and i don't believe he even tried to gauge it.

I don't think his announcement of a 'lamb to the slaughter' was a prophecy of what his conduct at the time of his death would be but rather an announcement of his willingly submitting to an course that would lead to his death.

He certainly went like a lamb to the 'slaughter house'. His actions once there were not so meek.

 

 

I will here reiterate what I have said on a number of occasions when this subject has come up. All that is required for one to qualify as a martyr is to refuse to renounce one's convictions as a price for being allowed to remain alive. It is not requisite that one passively submit to being killed.

 

You said this:

 

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.   

 

What would you have us do to be more "balanced"? Propound the damnable falsehoood-by-implicaiton that our antagonists do when they say Joseph "died in a shootout"?

 

 

Edited to add:

 

Wikipedia has this interesting table giving  "common features of stereotypical martyrdoms":

 

Common features of stereotypical martyrdoms^[6] 1. A hero A person of some renown who is devoted to a cause believed to be admirable. 2. Opposition People who oppose that cause. 3. Foreseeable risk The hero foresees action by opponents to harm him or her, because of his or her commitment to the cause. 4. Courage and Commitment The hero continues, despite knowing the risk, out of commitment to the cause. 5. Death The opponents kill the hero because of his or her commitment to the cause. 6. Audience response. The hero's death is commemorated. People may label the hero explicitly as a martyr. Other people may in turn be inspired to pursue the same cause.

 

 

I notice there is nothing in there about passively submitting to death.

 

I notice further how well the Prophet Joseph Smith fits these listed qualifications.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Abulafia]

I listened to this a few days ago.

 

As soon as he said "The Church of the Latter-day Saints" I knew we were in trouble

I wouldn't let that put you off. That is actually very respectful.

[Scott Lloyd]

I listened to this a few days ago.

 

As soon as he said "The Church of the Latter-day Saints" I knew we were in trouble

In trouble?

 

I haven't listened to the recorded broadcast, but from the quoted excerpt, it seems the Church was treated very positively.

 

Edited to add:

 

Just listened to the BBC report.

 

A very reasoned and sensible treatment of this matter.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hey guys and gal's I was not meaning to bring up a discussion about JS having a gun. The point being that this particular piece of history is talked about at church and is in the manuals. The point being that people are being lied to before they join the church about certain things, to me is just preposterous. What the real issue is that certain things, are not spun in a way that is most negative. I specifically brought the gun incident up because of this perception. I think it has been demonstrated esp by Scott that this is indeed the case. Anyway carry on. I really don't see this whole publicity stunt as really doing anything negative about the church. After all, virtually all of the church history is out on the internet in various forms from different points of view.

 

Anyway carry on.

[JAHS]

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.   

 

Jesus told Peter to put away the sword, but it was one of the two swords that Jesus had agreed to let them bring just before leaving to go to the Mount of Olives.

"And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."  (Luke 22:38).

 

Peter then drew one of the swords and smote off the ear of the high priest's servant (Matthew 26:51; Mark 14:47 Luke 22:50; John 18:10) 

Why would Jesus agree to bring the swords if he did not intend to use them?

[The Nehor]

Jesus told Peter to put away the sword, but it was one of the two swords that Jesus had agreed to let them bring just before leaving to go to the Mount of Olives.

"And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."  (Luke 22:38).

 

Peter then drew one of the swords and smote off the ear of the high priest's servant (Matthew 26:51; Mark 14:47 Luke 22:50; John 18:10) 

Why would Jesus agree to bring the swords if he did not intend to use them?

 

It is a little known fact that on the way to observe the trial of Jesus Peter and John ran into a sentry they had to deal with. The sword came in handy. Went something like this:

 

 

The coconuts are leftovers from the Passover feast.

[why me]

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.   

 

Please give us a balanced lesson on the matter. In the manuals it is quite balanced. What is left out from what I extracted from the manual a few threads back? We also need to be honest with the bible account. It was written long after the event and certainly not by the one that was there. Can we be certain that whomever wrote it got it right? But it did make a good faith story.

 

There can be many definitions of martyr. When Joseph was in liberty jail condemned to be shot, would he have been a martyr if he were shot at that time? When someone sees their brother shot in the face what should he have done. Stood mightily in front of the mob and faced his death like a early christian martyr? Joseph was a human being. He acted like a human being who just saw his brother shot and facing a mob coming through the door he defended himself and his friends.

 

He died a martyr because he was killed for being a mormon.

[Avatar4321]

I wouldn't let that put you off. That is actually very respectful.

 

You seriously think people delibrately leaving out Jesus Christ from the title of the Church is respectful? It's done intentionally to decieve people into thinking we don't believe in Christ.

[why me]

I wouldn't let that put you off. That is actually very respectful.

The church of latter day saints sounds actually like a different church...more cultish. And when we consider that most people in the UK do not know the official name, it is a little insulting to leave the name of Jesus Christ out of it. Why? Does the media not want the public to associate the church with Christ? This is very misleading, if so.

[David T]

The church of latter day saints sounds actually like a different church...more cultish. And when we consider that most people in the UK do not know the official name, it is a little insulting to leave the name of Jesus Christ out of it. Why? Does the media not want the public to associate the church with Christ? This is very misleading, if so.

 

To be fair, that was the second official name of the Church under Joseph Smith. First it was the Church of Christ, then it was the Church of the Latter-day Saints (see the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants).

[Abulafia]

Scott, like you, when it gets into early christianity (my area of deep interest) I feel it doesn't do any harm to put my view forward.

I was specifically talking of Jesus as suffering servant.  This is how the Gospels tended to portray him as a fulfillment of Isaiah 53
 

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

 

Each gospel writer picked up on this theme,  (see the cross references on this link -  http://biblehub.com/kjv/isaiah/53.htm)


Also see: 1 Peter 2
 

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.25For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

 

This was the theme and view of martyrdom that the earliest Christian communities appeared to pick up on.

As for Peter having the sword.  This doesn't necessarily negate the beliefs that grew around Jesus' martyrdom, though It was apparently a capital offence under Roman  Law.   What I think it does show is that Jesus was very liberal in his choice of followers.  Zealots, Tax Collectors.  He accepted them all.  Fascinating stuff.

I think it is this view of martyrdom that most people see as relating to Christian discipleship, which is why they can be shocked (particularly perhaps over here in the UK) when they learn that Joseph had a gun and used it.

I'll say no more on the subject.

[why me]

To be fair, that was the second official name of the Church under Joseph Smith. First it was the Church of Christ, then it was the Church of the Latter-day Saints (see the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants).

To be fair, the media should give it the name that it is today. The omission is unfortunate. For most people, the church is either the mormon church or the church of latter day saints. No jesus christ anywhere in the name. The full name is important because it puts the church in context.

[why me]

Scott, like you, when it gets into early christianity (my area of deep interest) I feel it doesn't do any harm to put my view forward.

I was specifically talking of Jesus as suffering servant.  This is how the Gospels tended to portray him as a fulfillment of Isaiah 53

 

Each gospel writer picked up on this theme,  (see the cross references on this link -  http://biblehub.com/kjv/isaiah/53.htm)

Also see: 1 Peter 2

 

This was the theme and view of martyrdom that the earliest Christian communities appeared to pick up on.

As for Peter having the sword.  This doesn't necessarily negate the beliefs that grew around Jesus' martyrdom, though It was apparently a capital offence under Roman  Law.   What I think it does show is that Jesus was very liberal in his choice of followers.  Zealots, Tax Collectors.  He accepted them all.  Fascinating stuff.

I think it is this view of martyrdom that most people see as relating to Christian discipleship, which is why they can be shocked (particularly perhaps over here in the UK) when they learn that Joseph had a gun and used it.

I'll say no more on the subject.

The Mirriam/webster dictionary also gives these definitions:

 

a person who is killed or who suffers greatly for a religion, cause, etc.

 

a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle

 

to put to death for adhering to a belief, faith, or profession

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr

 

How does Joseph do with these definitions?  I think that people need to understand the definition of martyr more and get the hollywood concept out of their heads. I think that I could give these definitions in sunday school when his martyrdom is discussed.

[Abulafia]

Why me, I'm talking about the earliest Christian Martyrs starting with Jesus (and tradition has it that Paul, Peter, and James followed in the same vein).  I'm not arguing against Joseph being a martyr in a modern sense or by modern definitions.  I'm saying he wasn't a martyr in the sense of the earliest christian traditions as I've outlined above.  This is how most people over here  in the UK understand the term.

(Sorry for derail).  

[Mystery Meat]

The whole argument over whether or not Joseph Smith died as a martyr has to be the dumbest conversation of all time on this board. He was a martyr for the cause of Christ the Lord and His restored Gospel. Anyone who disagrees can go out of their way to redefine the word or make up their own definition to exclude him, but that doesn't make him any less of a martyr.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why me, I'm talking about the earliest Christian Martyrs starting with Jesus (and tradition has it that Paul, Peter, and James followed in the same vein).  I'm not arguing against Joseph being a martyr in a modern sense or by modern definitions.  I'm saying he wasn't a martyr in the sense of the earliest christian traditions as I've outlined above.  This is how most people over here  in the UK understand the term.

(Sorry for derail).  

As I understand it, the word martyr means "witness," and the earliest Christian traditions applied the word to one who was, indeed, a witness of Christ. Many of these witnesses suffered death, so the word came to connote having death inflicted for a refusal to renounce one's witness.

 

But it's clear that in the earliest usage, the word did not necessarily connote death at all, let alone passive acceptance of death.

 

But all this has little relevance anyway. Under a normative definition of the word as used today, Joseph was most certainly a martyr. And the lamb-to-the-slaughter imagery applies to him, as I have already explained.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The whole argument over whether or not Joseph Smith died as a martyr has to be the dumbest conversation of all time on this board. He was a martyr for the cause of Christ the Lord and His restored Gospel. Anyone who disagrees can go out of their way to redefine the word or make up their own definition to exclude him, but that doesn't make him any less of a martyr.

I agree.

 

It's one of the sillier anti-Mormon arguments. And that's saying a lot, as anti-Mormonism can be pretty silly.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

In trouble?

I haven't listened to the recorded broadcast, but from the quoted excerpt, it seems the Church was treated very positively.

Edited to add:

Just listened to the BBC report.

A very reasoned and sensible treatment of this matter.

I agree, sorry I was just being sarcastic. It was a very reasonable report.

To those getting angsty about leaving Jesus Christ out of the name (and I know I started it), the British media have actually been pretty positive over the last year or two. The church was actively praised for it's calm reaction to the BoM musical coming to London. It was approaching a media love-in.

It was more than likely a slip of the tongue. If they had wanted to ridicule us the show's host could have easily invited Phillips to dish more dirt, but instead he seemed more interested in discussing the legal implications with an expert (who dismissed it).

[Scott Lloyd]

To be fair, the media should give it the name that it is today. The omission is unfortunate. For most people, the church is either the mormon church or the church of latter day saints. No jesus christ anywhere in the name. The full name is important because it puts the church in context.

I don't understand this urge to leave the name Jesus Christ out of the formal name of the Church either. As a journalist, I can say that it is a mark of professionalism to get proper names right.

 

But in this case, I can forgive the BBC newscasters and commentators, as this seems to happen frequently, and other than that minor foible, their piece is generally accurate, fair and level-headed.

[Scott Lloyd]

To be fair, that was the second official name of the Church under Joseph Smith. First it was the Church of Christ, then it was the Church of the Latter-day Saints (see the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants).

It was for a relatively brief period that it carried that name. And I doubt the BBC journalists -- or others who leave likewise give the name of the Church incorrectly -- do it because the have researched the history and are intentionally using an archaic name.

 

And an examination of the times and the literature of that period indicates that the Church members of that day did not really feel they were leaving the name of Christ out. To them, it was  implied in the name Church of the Latter-day Saints.

 

Our forebears in the Church learned things line upon line, and I can't fault them for not getting things right all at once.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree, sorry I was just being sarcastic. It was a very reasonable report.

To those getting angsty about leaving Jesus Christ out of the name (and I know I started it), the British media have actually been pretty positive over the last year or two. The church was actively praised for it's calm reaction to the BoM musical coming to London. It was approaching a media love-in.

It was more than likely a slip of the tongue. If they had wanted to ridicule us the show's host could have easily invited Phillips to dish more dirt, but instead he seemed more interested in discussing the legal implications with an expert (who dismissed it).

I agree with this.

[CMZ]

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.

 

Hmm didn't know that about the chronology of events, that Hyrum was shot first and then Joseph picked up the gun.