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

[bjw]

But Internet access makes them just as able to learn both sides as they are to learn about the controversies in the first place.

 

Which is why I get a bit bewildered when I encounter people who are aware of a controversy but show no evidence of having made the effort to check out the other side.

It would be nice if people would go on the net and check what the LDS  position is on each of these issues.  They get the anti position very easily, but they should realize that we believe what we believe because we have good reasons for doing so.  Hopefully more people will take time to go on the church website, as well as FAIR and FARMS to see what our positions are as well as the evidence we have for our beliefs.  Members not only gain a testimony through the Spirit, but many study the evidence as well to back up their beliefs.  I think too many people have a misconception that we simply play "follow the leader" without thinking.

[Calm]

I think it glosses over certain aspects. I will not go into it further. It was not information one could not have learned from news articles on the case.

And yet so many people are getting it wrong….

[frank_jessop]

And yet so many people are getting it wrong….

 

your evidence that "so many people are getting it wrong". 

[Kenngo1969]

your evidence that "so many people are getting it wrong". 

1.  It's repeatedly been referred to as a "lawsuit."  It is not.  It is a criminal complaint.

 

2.  People have stated that "evidence" has been presented to this point in the case.  It has not.  The complaint of Phillips, et al, has only survived to this point because of their ability to clear certain technical, procedural hurdles (all of the "i's" are dotted and all of the "t's" are crossed and the necessary verbiage has been used in all the right places, et cetera).

 

3.  On this very thread at least one person (who, to be perfectly honest, is not necessarily a great friend of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) has suggested that these legal proceedings are the perfect opportunity for President Monson to mount a soapbox and boldly reiterate the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ when, procedurally, such a thing is not possible and, in fact, President Monson likely would be held in contempt or charged with a crime if he persisted in any attempts to do so.

 

 

4.  Shall I go on?

Edited February 20, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[frank_jessop]

I am confident that Calmoriah is capable of addressing her own claim. 

[Kenngo1969]

I am confident that Calmoriah is capable of addressing her own claim. 

She was so torn up about the fact that I stepped on her toes by answering your query (even though you addressed it to her) that she gave me that rep point for my post.  What about it, Cal?  What else?  Sheila?  (Oh, I'm sorry.  Frankie only wants to hear from Cal. Everyone else, Shhhh!  I mean, it's supposed to be a discussion board, but ... Oh, well! )

[Calm]

What Ken said...

[Kenngo1969]

What Ken said...

[why me]

It would be nice if people would go on the net and check what the LDS  position is on each of these issues.  They get the anti position very easily, but they should realize that we believe what we believe because we have good reasons for doing so.  Hopefully more people will take time to go on the church website, as well as FAIR and FARMS to see what our positions are as well as the evidence we have for our beliefs.  Members not only gain a testimony through the Spirit, but many study the evidence as well to back up their beliefs.  I think too many people have a misconception that we simply play "follow the leader" without thinking.

I think that the problem at this moment is that the critic of mormonism sites have a great influence on the minds of non-members and members too. The sites can be very persuasive when they formulate an interpretation of lds history or doctrine. I think that one problem is that many members see the church as perfect and so, its history also needs to fit into a nice basket of eggs where no egg is broken or rotten. All eggs must be perfect. When they discover that the basket is not so perfect, they become depressed or feel betrayed. And when they go to farms or fair in hope that the basket of eggs are perfect in shape and form but discover that the eggs are not perfect...well...the end can be near for their belief system. The reasons why the basket of eggs are not perfect does not matter.

 

The lds church just needs to stress the imperfections more to squash the critic influence. But for the nonmember investigator who is searching the information about the church...well...he or she will find it difficult to critically their way through the maze of anti information.

Edited February 20, 2014 by why me

[sheilauk]

You are ubiquitous indeed, Sheila.

Only in this matter - when this is all over, I'll disappear! 

[sheilauk]

Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound like he had already been convicted, I just thought that under English Law a differentiation had to be made to separate "conviction" from "law suit" in a court trial.  I guess "trial" would be a better word to use.  

If it helps, UK terminology would be:

conviction - after a criminal trial = found guilty

criminal case pending - a prosecution

civil case - lawsuit

trial - any hearing where evidence is heard and facts are determined - civil or criminal  but mainly used in a criminal context

 

So Pres Monson faces a criminal prosecution and there is a hearing in March.  No trial has yet been fixed.

[sheilauk]

She was so torn up about the fact that I stepped on her toes by answering your query (even though you addressed it to her) that she gave me that rep point for my post.  What about it, Cal?  What else?  Sheila?  (Oh, I'm sorry.  Frankie only wants to hear from Cal. Everyone else, Shhhh!  I mean, it's supposed to be a discussion board, but ... Oh, well! )

Naughty!  But I gave you a rep point anyway!

[sheilauk]

Perhaps you would rather address the statement yourself than just accepting what someone else has claimed?

 

The "Yankee Lawyer" blog does not use the term "lawsuit" or "criminal complaint".  So it is a no go on the claim that "so many people are getting it wrong" by referring to it as a "lawsuit" instead of a "criminal complaint".

 

Regarding the claim that no evidence has been submitted. The Yankee Lawyer states "However, the court must at least be satisfied that at least some evidence exists to support the claim,".  So you claim number regarding "so many people getting it wrong" by saying evidence has been submitted is clearly wrong.

 

Regarding claim 3 offered on your behalf,  A single person on a internet message board hardly makes for "so many people". Even if a single person could accurately be described as "so many people", can you even show a connection between that single persons comment serving as a reason for the creatation of the blog post? And unless I am missing it, I do not beleive the Yankee Lawyer address the issue of President Monson using the legal proceedings as a forum or soapbox for reiterating truth claims of the Church; so I am not real sure how the "soapbox" claim ties into "so many people getting it wrong". 

Well, you'd really need to ask the blogger what his intentions were, but I think it was intended to set out as concisely as possible the present situation without going into all the right and wrong comments made elsewhere.  So, no, it doesn't correct people by pointing out that its not a lawsuit.  It refers instead to the UK terminology of a criminal prosecution, information and summons.  I have on this forum responded several times to people who have used the term lawsuit and I have seen it used in several articles about the case, so I certainly have the impression that a lot of people, and not just a single person on a single message board, think of it as lawsuit.  Its not.  Its a criminal matter - prosecution or complaint - in the UK either will suffice. 

 

Whether you consider evidence to be submitted or not may depend on how you understand the word submitted.  The fair blog post says evidence exists.  That is - the Judge has questioned Phillips to ensure he has already obtained evidence to submit to a Court and that he's not going to waste the Court's time by wanting time after the initial hearing to obtain evidence.  Evidence existing in the Prosecutor's hands and being submitted to the Court are not, in my mind, the same thing.  Are you suggesting that there is some sort of clarification made that makes it clearer that the Court does not have the evidence nor has it examined and tested the evidence.  Again, I have read people say that Phillips evidence must have convinced the Court and so he must win.  This is a fallacy.  The Judge knows that he has evidence.  It exists.  For example, he has two people who seem to be willing to go to Court and give oral evidence on the stand.  The Court has made no determination on the strength or even the admissibility of that evidence as it has not yet been submitted.  For example, those two people haven't submitted their evidence because there hasn't been a trial yet.  I'm quite sure that Phillips told the Judge who issued the summons his evidence.  That to me is not the same thing as it being submitted to the Court.  In the UK, the Judge's hearing in chambers and the Court are two separate and distinct things.  The issue of the summons is also a separate matter with separate considerations to the consideration of the charges.

 

You are right - the blog post does not refer to the suggestion made on this message board that the Court case could be used as a forum (or soapbox) for Pres Monson.  It discusses how the prosecution could come about (seriously, many people don't know about private prosecutions but you'll have to take my word for that as its anecdotal) and it discusses some of the claims made in the summons.  It doesn't discuss what happens in a trial.  I don't think that's an omission, i don't think that was the point of the post.  I imagine the aim of the post is as stated in the first paragraph:

 

However, rather than inciting fear and panic among the faithful, if they know about the case at all, the most common response is one of bewilderment among Mormons and non-Mormons alike. That is due partly to the fact that it seems quite odd that someone would pursue a case for fraud that is based on faith claims and personal opinions. But, at least for Americans, the odd nature by which the claim has arisen procedurally is equally puzzling.

 

Of course, I am neither Steve Densley (who wrote the post) nor Cal.  Take what you will from this post.

[Calm]

What Sheila said....

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, you'd really need to ask the blogger what his intentions were, but I think it was intended to set out as concisely as possible the present situation without going into all the right and wrong comments made elsewhere.  So, no, it doesn't correct people by pointing out that its not a lawsuit.  It refers instead to the UK terminology of a criminal prosecution, information and summons.  I have on this forum responded several times to people who have used the term lawsuit and I have seen it used in several articles about the case, so I certainly have the impression that a lot of people, and not just a single person on a single message board, think of it as lawsuit.  Its not.  Its a criminal matter - prosecution or complaint - in the UK either will suffice. 

 

Whether you consider evidence to be submitted or not may depend on how you understand the word submitted.  The fair blog post says evidence exists.  That is - the Judge has questioned Phillips to ensure he has already obtained evidence to submit to a Court and that he's not going to waste the Court's time by wanting time after the initial hearing to obtain evidence.  Evidence existing in the Prosecutor's hands and being submitted to the Court are not, in my mind, the same thing.  Are you suggesting that there is some sort of clarification made that makes it clearer that the Court does not have the evidence nor has it examined and tested the evidence.  Again, I have read people say that Phillips evidence must have convinced the Court and so he must win.  This is a fallacy.  The Judge knows that he has evidence.  It exists.  For example, he has two people who seem to be willing to go to Court and give oral evidence on the stand.  The Court has made no determination on the strength or even the admissibility of that evidence as it has not yet been submitted.  For example, those two people haven't submitted their evidence because there hasn't been a trial yet.  I'm quite sure that Phillips told the Judge who issued the summons his evidence.  That to me is not the same thing as it being submitted to the Court.  In the UK, the Judge's hearing in chambers and the Court are two separate and distinct things.  The issue of the summons is also a separate matter with separate considerations to the consideration of the charges.

 

You are right - the blog post does not refer to the suggestion made on this message board that the Court case could be used as a forum (or soapbox) for Pres Monson.  It discusses how the prosecution could come about (seriously, many people don't know about private prosecutions but you'll have to take my word for that as its anecdotal) and it discusses some of the claims made in the summons.  It doesn't discuss what happens in a trial.  I don't think that's an omission, i don't think that was the point of the post.  I imagine the aim of the post is as stated in the first paragraph:

 

 

 

 

Of course, I am neither Steve Densley (who wrote the post) nor Cal.  Take what you will from this post.

A fine analysis as always, Sheila.

 

But don't you get it? frank_jessop only wants to talk to calmoriah.

[Scott Lloyd]

The fairblog article by the "yankee lawyer" isn't very impressive to me.

I, on the other hand, find it to be a reasoned and persuasive analysis.

 

I guess my unelaborated-on opinion cancels out yours.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[frank_jessop]

I, on the other hand, find it to be a reasoned and persuasive analysis.

 

I guess my unelaborated-on opinion cancels out yours.

 

whatever floats your boat and allows you get a snarky comment in, glad that I could assist you in both respects.

[frank_jessop]

What Sheila said....

 

thank you for your continued unwillingness to provide your own sources for your claims.

[Scott Lloyd]

thank you for your continued unwillingness to provide your own sources for your claims.

You don't seem to get the point frank_jessop. This is a message board.

 

Think of it as a very large roundtable discussion -- or perhaps a town hall meeting -- with each person having an equal opportunity to be heard on any subject that is brought up. calmoriah is perfectly entitled -- as is anyone else here -- to agree with another participant and, if she desires, incorporate by reference that participant's words as her own response.

 

If you want a one-on-one with her, the board has a personal mail function. Of course, whether she chooses to respond to that is up to her.

 

Or you could choose to interact with those with whom calmoriah has expressed agreement here.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

What Scott said.

[bjw]

If it helps, UK terminology would be:

conviction - after a criminal trial = found guilty

criminal case pending - a prosecution

civil case - lawsuit

trial - any hearing where evidence is heard and facts are determined - civil or criminal  but mainly used in a criminal context

 

So Pres Monson faces a criminal prosecution and there is a hearing in March.  No trial has yet been fixed.

Thanks, I think I just had my semantics mixed up.

[Kenngo1969]

Only in this matter - when this is all over, I'll disappear! 

I won't allow that!  I'm going to come and hunt you down if you try!

[Thinking]

I think that one problem is that many members see the church as perfect and so, its history also needs to fit into a nice basket of eggs where no egg is broken or rotten. All eggs must be perfect. When they discover that the basket is not so perfect, they become depressed or feel betrayed. And when they go to farms or fair in hope that the basket of eggs are perfect in shape and form but discover that the eggs are not perfect...well...the end can be near for their belief system.

 

You make it sound like one little scratch, and the critic goes running for the door.

 

The reasons why the basket of eggs are not perfect does not matter.

 

Actually, the reasons matter the most.

[Kenngo1969]

I just noticed: (1) You can find out who's posted how many times in a thread by clicking on the thread's post count; and (2) I have the largest post count in this thread ... BY FAR!  Rise before Zod!  Kneel before Zod!  I'm going to keep this thread alive ... FOREVERRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! [Cue thunder!]  Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited February 24, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

You make it sound like one little scratch, and the critic goes running for the door. ...

Now you've gone and done it!  That reminds me of Hotel California:

 

 

 

Last thing I remember

I was runnin' for the door.

I had to find the passage back

To the place I was before.

 

"Relax," said the night man.

"We are programmed to receive!

You can check out any time you like,

But you can never leave!"

Edited February 24, 2014 by Kenngo1969