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

[Abulafia]

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.

Scott, I'm not arguing against Joseph being a martyr. I'm arguing for a set number of criterion, as outlined in Isaiah 53, which the Gospel writers used as a marker under which to place the crucifixion and martyrdom of Jesus of Nazareth. One of the essential markers WAS passive acceptance of the individual as a sacrifice for a greater cause. I don't know why we are even debating this.

As for what the historical Jesus was really like, then maybe he was a revolutionary zealot with a taste for blood, but, for one reason or another, that's not how the NT writers chose to portray him.

If you want to know or try to understand why people might feel shocked to learn the more complex history of Joseph's martyrdom, then you need to know how most view Christian Martyrdom. That's all.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Abulafia

[Gray]

Do you think Pres Monson will bother to show up? I know it's technically a "criminal" matter but it smacks of a nuisance lawsuit, and I can't imagine that GB would try to extradite 

[Kenngo1969]

Do you think Pres Monson will bother to show up? I know it's technically a "criminal" matter but it smacks of a nuisance lawsuit, and I can't imagine that GB would try to extradite 

Yes, he will "show up" . . . through counsel.  Unless the U.K. system is different than its U.S. counterpart in that regard, he is perfectly well entitled to do so.

[CMZ]

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.

 

I think sometimes it might be done intentionally and other times it is done unknowingly and innocently. But it still irks me that anyone would somehow see the name of the Church and then when repeating said name leave out the most important and distinctive part of it, for whatever reason they're doing it.

[Calm]

It is common practice to shorten a church's name, leaving out the more common terms and focusing instead on unusual ones.

While some leave out "Jesus Christ" as a refusal to acknowledge us as Christians, I don't think the majority do.

It makes sense when we are called "Latter-Day Saints" to think "the church of the Latter-Day Saints" and then get that stuck in one's head as the actual title....or so it seems to me.

[canard78]

Do you think Pres Monson will bother to show up? I know it's technically a "criminal" matter but it smacks of a nuisance lawsuit, and I can't imagine that GB would try to extradite

There's no way an extradition will be attempted, let alone happen.

In some ways I hope they completely ignore it. I almost don't want the summons even given the credibility of being acknowledged as being worth the paper it was printed on.

On the other hand, it might be easier to send a legal representative along, just so it can be dismissed more rapidly.

Whatever the church decides to do, the circling vultures will find some way to spin it against the church.

[MiserereNobis]

But it still irks me that anyone would somehow see the name of the Church and then when repeating said name leave out the most important and distinctive part of it, for whatever reason they're doing it.

 

Actually, Latter-day Saints is the distinctive (that which makes a distinction) part of it.

[Tacenda]

Spoke with someone from my neighborhood that grew up in England.  I asked her what she thought about Pres. Monson and the summons.  She said she's not worried a bit about it.  That it will be thrown out.  (I wish we weren't at work and had more time to talk, I'd love to have asked her more about her country).  Anyway, she waved it off with a smile on her face and didn't take it serious at all.  In her words, it was that the guy/guys just wanted to get their tithing money back.     

Edited February 13, 2014 by Tacenda

[JulieM]

Spoke with someone from my neighborhood that grew up in England.  I asked her what she thought about Pres. Monson and the summons.  She said she's not worried a bit about it.  That it will be thrown out.  (I wish we weren't at work and had more time to talk, I'd love to have asked her more about her country).  Anyway, she waved it off with a smile on her face and didn't take it serious at all.  In her words, it was that the guy/guys just wanted to get their tithing money back.

I think this is what most church members think about all of this (if they even know about it). I was out to lunch today with a few other women from my ward and one of them brought it up. I was the only other one there who even knew it was going on. They all shrugged it off and also said that it'll just be thrown out and soon. I did say that in my opinion, at least the hearing in March will happen but I believe it'll then be dismissed.

[wenglund]

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.

 

Excellent points!

 

I could add several more points, myself, but what is most important to me and entirely missing in the brouhaha  is the real issue of whether the soap does what the salesman says it does--i.e. make people clean. People who are of the mind that there hasn't been "full disclosure," don't really get what the gospel is actually all about. As you intimate, the gospel isn't about disclosing obscure historical data or catering to this persons or that person's subjective notion of "truth," nor is it even about pain and doubt avoidance. Instead, it is about making people clean and enabling them to come unto Christ and be more like him. This is entirely missing in the legal action, and clear evidence to me that this isn't a case of fraud, but instead a case of people not correctly grasping or properly utilizing the product regardless of how long they may have used it.

 

Said another way, if people have used the soap for years, and the soap made them clean, and they are now crying "fraud" and demanding their money back because the salesman didn't disclose that the Sr. VP of Marketing had multiple wives...Well, the problem isn't with the soap or the soap company or the salesman.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Wiki Wonka]

There's no way an extradition will be attempted, let alone happen.

In some ways I hope they completely ignore it. I almost don't want the summons even given the credibility of being acknowledged as being worth the paper it was printed on.

On the other hand, it might be easier to send a legal representative along, just so it can be dismissed more rapidly.

Whatever the church decides to do, the circling vultures will find some way to spin it against the church.

 

Here's an excerpt from a BBC Radio broadcast. Frank Cranmer is an honorary research fellow at the Center for Law and Religion at Cardiff Law School in the U.K.

 

Sunday February 9, 2014, BBC Radio 4

 

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

 

Edward Stourton: And presumably, if this case goes ahead, civil action could be taken against any church to which someone disagreed with? Or is that overstating it?

 

Frank Cranmer: I suspect that might be overstating it, but as far as this going ahead…that in itself, I would have thought, fairly unlikely. First, it’s a purely private prosecution. Second, its open to the Crown Prosecution Service to take over any private prosecution in England and Wales and then apply their own test as to the likelihood of a conviction, and whether or not the matter is in the public interest. But even if they did, assuming that Mr. Monson didn’t come to London under his own steam, the only way to proceed further would be to issue…to seek a warrant for his extradition from the U.S. of A. And I can’t see an American court agreeing to such an extradition, partly on grounds of public policy, and partly on grounds of the fact that he would immediately plead the free exercise clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

Stourton: It does stretch credibility a bit, doesn’t it? The thought that…

 

Cranmer: It does a bit, yes…

 

Stourton: …would actually even initiate an extradition proceeding of that kind, let alone that the head of the Mormon church would pop up in a magistrate’s court in Westminster.

 

Cranmer: I can’t see it…No.

 

Stourton: So this is just a bit of a distraction I think, but potentially…well, I’m dangerously overstating it, but…not a particularly helpful intervention.

 

Cranmer: Well…on that you must ask a Mormon, but I would have thought, on the whole, people of religion believe all sorts of things which people who do not share their beliefs…do not share. I don’t really think that you can argue matters of religion, or matters of religious doctrine in the courts. It’s just not the proper place to do it.

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

It'll come as no shock that I agree ... wholeheartedly ... with Mr. Cranmer.

[Wiki Wonka]

It'll come as no shock that I agree ... wholeheartedly ... with Mr. Cranmer.

 

The reason why those who are excited about the summons perceive that the media keeps getting it wrong is because Phillips wants to frame it as a case of fraud against a corporation. That is why he keeps insisting that it has nothing to do with theology or even religion. However, the media keeps circling from the fraud allegation back to the fact that it is a church, and the leader of that church, that are being accused. The media will never look at the church as a corporation.

[CMZ]

As you intimate, the gospel isn't about disclosing obscure historical data or catering to this persons or that person's subjective notion of "truth," nor is it even about pain and doubt avoidance. Instead, it is about making people clean and enabling them to come unto Christ and be more like him.

 

I wish more people would understand this. People can get their hands on whatever historical detail they want. If they find out Joseph Smith had multiple wives what big deal is it that the Church isn't blasting that fact into everyone's faces all the time? That's not teaching the gospel. The only reason people bring up "there's historical stuff the Church isn't telling its members" is so that they can feel like they set the standard about what the Church must teach. And whatever the Church does it won't be enough for some people. They will still have some ax to grind. One can live and receive the blessings of the Gospel without the Church shouting through a megaphone at least once a day about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Or one can perpetually whine about how the fact that Joseph Smith defended himself and others with a gun isn't in the first discussion. The choice is up to each individual.

 

 

Fortunately, in this world, one is always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.

 

We are, as reflective, thinking, pondering seekers, much like the proverbial *** of Buridan. The beast in the parable starves to death because he is faced with two equally desirable and equally accessible piles of hay. Having no determinative reason to choose one over the other, he perishes in indecision. In the case of us mortals, we are confronted with a world in which there are appealing arguments for a Divinity that is a childish projection, for prophets as scheming or deluded imposters, and for scriptures as so much fabulous fiction. But there is also compelling evidence that a glorious Divinity presides over the cosmos, that His angels are strangers we have entertained unaware, and that His word and will are made manifest through a scriptural canon that is never definitively closed.

 

There is, as with the *** of Buridan, nothing to compel an individual’s preference for one over the other. For most of us, at least, there is neither a choir of heavenly heralds proving God exists, nor a laboratory of science equipment proving He doesn’t. Rather, we find a persuasive body of evidence on both sides of life’s competing propositions. Only in the case of us mortals, there is something to tip the scale. There is something to predispose us to a life of faith or a life of disbelief. There is a heart that, in these conditions of equilibrium and balance, equally “enticed by the one or the other,” is truly free to choose belief or skepticism, faith or faithlessness.

 

The call to faith, in this light, is not some test of a coy god, waiting to see if we “get it right.” It is the only summons, issued under the only conditions, which can allow us fully to reveal who we are, what we most love, and what we most devoutly desire. Without constraint, without any form of mental compulsion, the act of belief becomes the freest possible projection of what resides in our hearts. Like the poet’s image of a church bell that only reveals its latent music when struck, or a dragonfly that only flames forth its beauty in flight, so does the content of a human heart lie buried until action calls it forth. The greatest act of self-revelation occurs when we choose what we will believe, in that space of freedom that exists between knowing that a thing is, and knowing that a thing is not.

 

This is the realm where faith operates, and when faith is a freely chosen gesture, it expresses something essential about the self. For we do indeed create gods after our own image—or potential image. And that is an activity endowed with incalculable moral meaning. If we linger in indecision, as does Buridan’s beast, we will not perish. We will simply miss an opportunity to act decisively in the absence of certainty, and show that our fear of error is greater than our love of truth.

 

The God Who Weeps by Fiona Givens, Terryl Givens

 

[Thinking]

I wish more people would understand this. People can get their hands on whatever historical detail they want. If they find out Joseph Smith had multiple wives what big deal is it that the Church isn't blasting that fact into everyone's faces all the time? That's not teaching the gospel. The only reason people bring up "there's historical stuff the Church isn't telling its members" is so that they can feel like they set the standard about what the Church must teach. And whatever the Church does it won't be enough for some people. They will still have some ax to grind. One can live and receive the blessings of the Gospel without the Church shouting through a megaphone at least once a day about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Or one can perpetually whine about how the fact that Joseph Smith defended himself and others with a gun isn't in the first discussion. The choice is up to each individual.

 

Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of God. Should I not then test everything he claimed to receive from God? You are correct that MMM has nothing to do with JS but plural marriage is a principle that he practiced and claimed that God revealed to him the details of that doctrine. I should examine the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Doctrine & Covenants and anything that was an official practice or teaching.

[CMZ]

Yes.

[Abulafia]

I haven't read the whole of this thread from beginning, so apologies if this has already been covered.  From a British perspective I think there is a lot of 'ignoring the elephant in the room' going on here by apologists.

For me, the question is this.  Does the Church have an ethical responsibility to be open and forthcoming with its history before it baptizes people and asks them to pay tithing?  I would say most certainly, yes.   I asked my mother yesterday, would she have joined, had she known that black people couldn't hold the priesthood and that Joseph condoned polyandry.  She said that she wouldn't have joined.  And here you have the problem.  

It may be that people believe so strongly that the Church 'is' the Gospel, that they hide or are embarrassed about past history, teachings, and practice, and it may be that the church is finally beginning to be more open 'officially' about its own history, but that doesn't help the many people who joined under false pretenses. (as they would view it).

Does the church have a legal obligation to disclose certain information to investigators before they start parting with their money?   This is apparently what Tom has convinced a judge in the positive.

I'm watching it with interest.

[why me]

I haven't read the whole of this thread from beginning, so apologies if this has already been covered.  From a British perspective I think there is a lot of 'ignoring the elephant in the room' going on here by apologists.

For me, the question is this.  Does the Church have an ethical responsibility to be open and forthcoming with its history before it baptizes people and asks them to pay tithing?  I would say most certainly, yes.   I asked my mother yesterday, would she have joined, had she known that black people couldn't hold the priesthood and that Joseph condoned polyandry.  She said that she wouldn't have joined.  And here you have the problem.  

 

I think that we can generalize your questions: Does the catholic church have an ethical responsibility to be open and forthcoming with its history before it baptizes people and ask them to pay alms on sunday?

 

Does, the jewish faith have an ethical responsibility to be open and fortcoming with its history before it admits converts and ask them to pay alms for the poor?

 

Does the Anglican Church have an ethical responsibility to be open and forthcoming with its history before it baptizes people and asks them to donate to the church coffers?

 

As we can see, all new converts to all religions should be experts about that faith's history before joining. And be forthcoming about its history as stipulated by its critics. Does this make sense?

Edited February 13, 2014 by why me

[why me]

.

  I asked my mother yesterday, would she have joined, had she known that black people couldn't hold the priesthood and that Joseph condoned polyandry.  She said that she wouldn't have joined.  And here you have the problem.  

It may be that people believe so strongly that the Church 'is' the Gospel, that they hide or are embarrassed about past history, teachings, and practice, and it may be that the church is finally beginning to be more open 'officially' about its own history, but that doesn't help the many people who joined under false pretenses. (as they would view it).

 

I would think that if all faiths were upfront with their history, stressing its faults and imperfections, no one would join any faith. And if atheists were upfront with their history and teach the imperfections with their history, no one would want to be an atheist. It becomes a hamster wheel. And we learned the history of humanity in an upfront manner, no one would want to be a human being.

[flameburns623]

I haven't read the whole of this thread from beginning, so apologies if this has already been covered. From a British perspective I think there is a lot of 'ignoring the elephant in the room' going on here by apologists.For me, the question is this. Does the Church have an ethical responsibility to be open and forthcoming with its history before it baptizes people and asks them to pay tithing? I would say most certainly, yes. I asked my mother yesterday, would she have joined, had she known that black people couldn't hold the priesthood and that Joseph condoned polyandry. She said that she wouldn't have joined. And here you have the problem. It may be that people believe so strongly that the Church 'is' the Gospel, that they hide or are embarrassed about past history, teachings, and practice, and it may be that the church is finally beginning to be more open 'officially' about its own history, but that doesn't help the many people who joined under false pretenses. (as they would view it).Does the church have a legal obligation to disclose certain information to investigators before they start parting with their money? This is apparently what Tom has convinced a judge in the positive.I'm watching it with interest.

This doesn't make a lot of sense.

First of all: a lot of prospective converts are sorta 'in love' with their newfound burgeoning faith, so they aren't listening very closely, if at all, to critical details. Take it from someone who has been a convert to more than one cause or POV: it's just that way.

It's 'after the honeymoon' that folks start noticing the 'imperfections'. Very often they will exclaim that they "never knew" about a certain lifelong peccadilo of their beloved. It just went unnoticed. So the call for 'full disclosure' fails to account for the tendency of humans to ignore the downside and negative aspects of something they want. Hey: I just ate a donut: donuts aren't good for me, I need to lose weight but--I was hungry and I REALLY WANTED that donut. I know what the downsides of doing so are, but I ate the donut anyhow.

I've already pointed out that the law pretty much everywhere allows one to make one's best positive case for oneself. My Church apologists do it in discussing Catholicism, I don't see courts disallowing Mormons from doing so. If courts take this sort of thing on, it will have no end.

And--the negative information which folks want offered in the name of "full disclosure" is out there and always has been. I knew about Jerald and Sandra Tanner, I knew about "The Godmakers" 'way back in the late 1980'a before Global Warming Al invented the Internet. I knew there were Christian bookstores with entire shelves of "Countercult" volumes, many of them specifically about Mormonism. I knew how to use library loan systems to get many of those books, if I didn't care to buy them.

I don't think I'm unique or specially savvy: I think most prospective converts have had the ability to find resources to debunk Mormonism, if they were inclined so to do.

I don't believe that sly twenty-something missionaries or their octogenarian Prophets hoodwinked us: we had a perceived spiritual need, LDS teaching met or appeared as if it could meet that need--and if it did not meet it, or if our needs changed, or if we misconstrued Mormonism's capacity to meet that need--it was and is not the fault of the "dastardly" LDS Missionaries, their Apostles, Prophets, Priesthood Leaders, or Standard Works.

I don't have to believe one word of Monson's teachings relative to the "Restored Gospel" to believe he is not a con artist nor aids & abets con artists or swindlers. He believes--wrongly, IMHO--in exactly what he bears testimony about, and neither he nor his colleagues nor his associates deserve to be in court. My fellow ex-Mormons need to cherish whatever good they took away from the LDS, and move on. Quit punishing Mormonism for not being what they wanted it to be.

Rant over. Worked all night. Going to bed now.

Edited February 13, 2014 by flameburns623

[Duncan]

My Mom found out the other day that Joseph Smith had other wives and guess what she didn't care. My convert BIL found out a few years ago that blacks didn't hold the priesthood until 1978 and he didn't care. So, not everyone is interested in the history of the Church, some are but some aren't.

[Tacenda]

My Mom found out the other day that Joseph Smith had other wives and guess what she didn't care. My convert BIL found out a few years ago that blacks didn't hold the priesthood until 1978 and he didn't care. So, not everyone is interested in the history of the Church, some are but some aren't.

I'm glad it didn't matter to your Mom, did she know the details?  Do you think that will matter?  Of course, to some like your Mom, it doesn't matter.  Some friends of mine and my husbands, brought up the fact that JS had wives, they hadn't known the details.  The wife of our friends, decided to look up the details and was taken back about it, I played it down, they don't know my full faith crisis, and I hope they don't ever go near a faith crisis.  But I don't think it hurt their faith like it did mine.  So it might just be certain individuals that it affects, to the degree it does. 

[Duncan]

I'm glad it didn't matter to your Mom, did she know the details?  Do you think that will matter?  Of course, to some like your Mom, it doesn't matter.  Some friends of mine and my husbands, brought up the fact that JS had wives, they hadn't known the details.  The wife of our friends, decided to look up the details and was taken back about it, I played it down, they don't know my full faith crisis, and I hope they don't ever go near a faith crisis.  But I don't think it hurt their faith like it did mine.  So it might just be certain individuals that it affects, to the degree it does. 

 

 

uh, she talked about it and it didn't seem to phase her much at all. I don't know what or how much she knows. My Mom is a librarian or was anyways. my BIL reaction, was much simpler and I bet now he doesn't even remember knowing he even found that out! I am fully aware others don't have the same reaction. I knew about this stuff years ago and I don't care, I am trying to find my own woman I don't have time to worry about who married who in the 1800's

[ALarson]

Tom Phillips has answered several questions (it was posted online last night), here's just part of it (feedback welcome from any legal experts which I am definitely not):

 

Question: Why do you think CPS hasn't shut down your case? Is it possible that they are not aware of it? Or do you know if they are aware of it?

Phillips: “The CPS are aware of it. I reported the matter to the Serious Fraud Office and the police last April, I believe, and they are still investigating it. Typically, they take about two years on such a matter. That is why I went the pp [private prosecutor] route. I can't wait that long.

“Neither I nor D[istrict] J[udge] Roscoe have any duty to inform them [CPS] about the pp and summons but could anyone seriously believe they are not aware? Why haven't they closed it down? Well, firstly, they can take their time considering their decision. No doubt, Monson’s team has been in touch with them pleading for them to take over and close it down. I am of the opinion [that] they [CPS] have no legal grounds to close this down, and I will vigorously challenge any such attempt by them, to the extent it will become an embarrassment to the Prime Minister [PM] who is already planning his re-election against other difficulties. I mention the PM because the ONLY reason I can see for them shutting this down is political. There will be fury in the British popular press were this to happen. Particularly the [uK] ‘Daily Mail’ would get on to ‘letting criminals off because they pose as an American church,’ and the ‘Daily Mail’ will cause the loss of votes from the Conservatives to the UKIP [united Kingdom Independent Party] and other parties. Bye-bye, [british Prime Minister] David Cameron.

 

 

He answered other questions, but I thought his take on this topic might be of interest to some on here.

Edited February 13, 2014 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Tom Phillips also said that he is doing an interview on BBC.