Usa Today And The Summons

[why me]

It seems that British legal experts have chimed in with their opinion about the Thomas S. Monson summons:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/04/mormon-president-ordered-to-court/5216645/

 

Legal scholars in England expressed bewilderment at the summonses, saying British law precludes challenges to theological beliefs in secular courts.

"I'm sitting here with an open mouth," said Neil Addison, a former crown prosecutor and author on religious freedom. "I think the British courts will recoil in horror. This is just using the law to make a show, an anti-Mormon point. And I'm frankly shocked that a magistrate has issued it."

 

The entire article is a good read. I think that the exmormons who initiated this summons will have egg on their face.

[Kenngo1969]

I knew it!  British courts are just as eager to provide a forum to adjudicate religious truth claims as their U.S. counterparts are!

[sheilauk]

I agree with those UK lawyers quoted.  I'm disappointed the summons was issued.  But issuing it is easier than refusing to do so.  Leaves the problem in someone else's hands.

 

Or maybe I'm just cynical.

[why me]

I agree with those UK lawyers quoted.  I'm disappointed the summons was issued.  But issuing it is easier than refusing to do so.  Leaves the problem in someone else's hands.

 

Or maybe I'm just cynical.

I think that the article demonstrates that Tom Phillips and the exmo's are not receiving a positive spin in England. And it does not bode well for MormonThink which has now compromised its supposed neutrality.

[Johnnie Cake]

I've been banned from participation on the other thread covering this subject and I have a sincere question that I would like to ask the members of this board who are active participants in the church. Thought I'd post it here: (if someone wants to move it to its won thread that would be fine since I can't begin threads of my own...it is not my intent to hijack this tread)

 

Some background:

 

I have not been involved in the church for about 10+ years, all my family members remain active temple attending members, all in good standing.  In other words they are firm believers in the truth claims of Mormonism. While I get it that my online anonymous personality can oft time come off as extreme, controversial, harden heart apostateish or even bitter at times...(I don't see my self that way...but I get it)  I guess I do get some satisfaction sticking it to the church at times.  Anyway...on my FB page...its just me in real life no filters or walls to hide behind...and I tend to be quite balanced, boring and shy away from controversial subjects.
 

 

But yesterday I posted a link on my Facebook page to the Salt Lake Tribune article on the legal action that has been filed against President Monson in the UK.  I did not add any comments, just the standard FB link.  I guess I was naïve as I wasn't prepared for the vitriol that followed.  Merely posting the link started a domino effect of comments expressing great offence that I would even post such a link.  I was taken back that this story was viewed with  so much offense by members of the church, both friends and family, on my FB page...it really struck a nerve...and it wasn't pretty.

 

What I am trying to understand is why?  Why can't this subject be discussed?  While I understand that believers view President Monson as a prophet, should he be given special status? Is this subject off limits?  Did I cross some line? It seems that prophets of old were subjected to all kinds of public ridicule.  What is the nerve I struck by merely posting the link to this story?  I would really like to seek understanding.

 

Thanks for your help

 

PS...if you can't tell, I'm wearing my humble hat... 

Edited February 7, 2014 by Johnnie Cake

[Buckeye]

JC - aparently you did not realize that many mormons have a persecution complex.  Next time, try linking to the Deseret News article (found here:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865595846/Bizarre-British-summons-roundly-criticized-by-legal-experts-religious-freedom-advocates.html).  Deseret News is normally late to the game on news events that put the church in a bad light, and they often fail to report on all sides.  (For instance, in this case they merely identify Tom Phillips as a former member; no mention that he was a stake president and bishop).  But I find members have less objection to information that comes through church-approved sources.   In light of the church including a copy of the DN in the Feb. 2014 Ensign, your family should be hard-pressed to object to information coming from that source.

 

Also, if you post a link on FB without making any comment, people will read into your action their assumptions as to your beliefs.  If someone thought you were hostile to the church, I could see them concluding that your FB post was intended to be hostile, even if that wasn't your intention. 

[strappinglad]

If only we Mormons were as quiet and restrained when someone attacks the Prophet , as the Muslims are when Mohammed is slighted. We have lessons to learn my friends.

[bluebell]

Johnny, I saw the same link posted on other people's pages with no commentary and it did not illicit any negative reactions from members.

However, these people are active, which probably helped people to assume they weren't trying to make any kind of negative statement towards the church.

[thesometimesaint]

I've been banned from participation on the other thread covering this subject and I have a sincere question that I would like to ask the members of this board who are active participants in the church. Thought I'd post it here: (if someone wants to move it to its won thread that would be fine since I can't begin threads of my own...it is not my intent to hijack this tread)

 

Some background:

 

I have not been involved in the church for about 10+ years, all my family members remain active temple attending members, all in good standing.  In other words they are firm believers in the truth claims of Mormonism. While I get it that my online anonymous personality can oft time come off as extreme, controversial, harden heart apostateish or even bitter at times...(I don't see my self that way...but I get it)  I guess I do get some satisfaction sticking it to the church at times.  Anyway...on my FB page...its just me in real life no filters or walls to hide behind...and I tend to be quite balanced, boring and shy away from controversial subjects.

 

 

But yesterday I posted a link on my Facebook page to the Salt Lake Tribune article on the legal action that has been filed against President Monson in the UK.  I did not add any comments, just the standard FB link.  I guess I was naïve as I wasn't prepared for the vitriol that followed.  Merely posting the link started a domino effect of comments expressing great offence that I would even post such a link.  I was taken back that this story was viewed with  so much offense by members of the church, both friends and family, on my FB page...it really struck a nerve...and it wasn't pretty.

 

What I am trying to understand is why?  Why can't this subject be discussed?  While I understand that believers view President Monson as a prophet, should he be given special status? Is this subject off limits?  Did I cross some line? It seems that prophets of old were subjected to all kinds of public ridicule.  What is the nerve I struck by merely posting the link to this story?  I would really like to seek understanding.

 

Thanks for your help

 

PS...if you can't tell, I'm wearing my humble hat... 

 

I don't see any problem with just posting a link to a news article. That being said you are probably are a known quantity to your friends and family. So they are a little gun shy.

[Johnnie Cake]

Because I live in Utah, along the Wasatch Front no less..in the heart of Mormondom, I've kept news of my disaffection to a minimum.  I'm sure that the vast majority of my friends and even some family members have no idea I'm no longer involved.  It is only online that I am an open apostate...and do so anonymously.  I am not open about my apostasy because of the social consequences of doing so.  So no, you won't see me holding a sign at general conference or attending the exmormon conventions.

 

So when I had the reaction I had on my FB page I was quite taken back...

[thesometimesaint]

Some of the good folk along the Wasatch Front would probably want to brand me a heretic too. But a nice one. I'm not your conventional Peter Priesthood either.

[juliann]

Because I live in Utah, along the Wasatch Front no less..in the heart of Mormondom, I've kept news of my disaffection to a minimum.  I'm sure that the vast majority of my friends and even some family members have no idea I'm no longer involved.  It is only online that I am an open apostate...and do so anonymously.  I am not open about my apostasy because of the social consequences of doing so.  So no, you won't see me holding a sign at general conference or attending the exmormon conventions.

 

So when I had the reaction I had on my FB page I was quite taken back...

I think it would be next to impossible to hide feelings about the church when you describe yourself as an open apostate.  It comes out in tone of voice, in facial expressions, in what you choose to talk about as opposed to what you don't talk about.   I have family that are no longer Mormon, we are careful about what we talk about but we do have conversations about it....I have no problems chuckling over the church's foibles with them because I know I won't get a "look" or snide comment and they are willing to give the church credit where credit is due.  This would be a very easy topic to broach because it is hard to find anyone who thinks it is a sane move.

[Coreyb]

Some of the good folk along the Wasatch Front would probably want to brand me a heretic too. But a nice one. I'm not your conventional Peter Priesthood either.

Is anyone on this Site a conventional Peter Priesthood?

Edited February 7, 2014 by Coreyb

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It seems that British legal experts have chimed in with their opinion about the Thomas S. Monson summons:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/04/mormon-president-ordered-to-court/5216645/

 

Legal scholars in England expressed bewilderment at the summonses, saying British law precludes challenges to theological beliefs in secular courts.

"I'm sitting here with an open mouth," said Neil Addison, a former crown prosecutor and author on religious freedom. "I think the British courts will recoil in horror. This is just using the law to make a show, an anti-Mormon point. And I'm frankly shocked that a magistrate has issued it."

 

The entire article is a good read. I think that the exmormons who initiated this summons will have egg on their face.

On the "board not to be named" they support this as a means to disprove Mormonism. Note how well earthly courts worked out for Jesus...not even an appeal.

[Lightbearer]

On the "board not to be named" they support this as a means to disprove Mormonism. Note how well earthly courts worked out for Jesus...not even an appeal.

This actually reminded me of a book I saw several years ago (while on my Mission) I think it was called "Day of Defence" or something like that, in which all the Anti-Mormon objections were presented in the form of a court case in which all of these objections to Mormonism were explained overturned! It was in a comic book format somewhat like Chick publicaitons. It was at times helpful to understand some of the common Anti- objections if not that helpful at complete answers but it was entertaining. Not sure if it is still in print, I saw it around 1980... This was the first apologetic work I ever saw, even if it probably could not be said it was "scholarly" it still had some good info, It was structured as a mock court case that had many of the same allegations that the Phillips character has in his case.

[BlueDreams]

What I am trying to understand is why?  Why can't this subject be discussed?  While I understand that believers view President Monson as a prophet, should he be given special status? Is this subject off limits?  Did I cross some line? It seems that prophets of old were subjected to all kinds of public ridicule.  What is the nerve I struck by merely posting the link to this story?  I would really like to seek understanding.

 

Thanks for your help

 

PS...if you can't tell, I'm wearing my humble hat... 

 

Not sure. In my FB circle it didn't make much waves. Albeit the wave that it did make were mostly negative towards the case. My cuz who posted it first isn't mormon (loosely connected still, though....but super loose). It wasn't what I'd call vitriolic. The conversations was largely with family and ranged from slightest empathy for the prosecutors to mentioning satan's work (not fam) to shock and worry. But it didn't get a lot of traction from anyone and most figured that it would fail and was a waste of time. So I can't say for you and your peoples. Mine were relatively tame. But I'd take a guess that most just don't see it as not just about Monson per se, but what he represents to us and what the case is about (ie. our beliefs). No matter what they say as it's not an attack on the lay-member, the lay-member will still see it as exactly that. My peeps hail from pioneer stock as well. There's also a spiritual heritage of opposition. That's what this is seen as: opposition that'll fail. We've dealt with worse, but it's still disconcerting to see your faith besmirched in front of a court. 

 

 Also I'd have to agree with Juliann. My uncle is pretty obviously disillusioned from the church. I haven't even heard most of his complaints in depth (he's the one who showed the slight empathy to the case, stating something about liking their donations and how it's similar to a business). But he also still attends. None of our family would be all that surprised that if his wife died, that'd be the last he'd step into a church. I think it's harder to really hide it, IMO.

 

With luv,

BD

[rodheadlee]

Because I live in Utah, along the Wasatch Front no less..in the heart of Mormondom, I've kept news of my disaffection to a minimum.  I'm sure that the vast majority of my friends and even some family members have no idea I'm no longer involved.  It is only online that I am an open apostate...and do so anonymously.  I am not open about my apostasy because of the social consequences of doing so.  So no, you won't see me holding a sign at general conference or attending the exmormon conventions.

 

So when I had the reaction I had on my FB page I was quite taken back...

No wonder you're bitter in your posts here. I couldn't imagine living a lie. Do you still go to Church and the Temple?

 

I don't have to go to work so I can add to this post. I'm not criticizing you. I've heard this same thing from others and I just find it astounding to me that people live their lives like this. I wear my emotions on my sleeve and there is no way I could pull this off. If I were personally in your position I would live my life according to my conscience  and if my friends and family or employer don't like it, too bad. If it was intolerable I would pack my bags and leave. I understand the need to let your wife (as well as your children) live her life according to her dictates and conscience but everyone else can just stuff it. I guess what I really want to say is have the courage to live your convictions to the best of your ability, you'll be a happier person..

Edited February 8, 2014 by rodheadlee

[Kenngo1969]

I agree with those UK lawyers quoted.  I'm disappointed the summons was issued.  But issuing it is easier than refusing to do so.  Leaves the problem in someone else's hands.

 

Or maybe I'm just cynical.

How long have you been practicing law?  And we're supposed to be surprised if you've grown cynical?

[Kenngo1969]

I've been banned from participation on the other thread covering this subject and I have a sincere question that I would like to ask the members of this board who are active participants in the church. Thought I'd post it here: (if someone wants to move it to its won thread that would be fine since I can't begin threads of my own...it is not my intent to hijack this tread)

 

Some background:

 

I have not been involved in the church for about 10+ years, all my family members remain active temple attending members, all in good standing.  In other words they are firm believers in the truth claims of Mormonism. While I get it that my online anonymous personality can oft time come off as extreme, controversial, harden heart apostateish or even bitter at times...(I don't see my self that way...but I get it)  I guess I do get some satisfaction sticking it to the church at times.  Anyway...on my FB page...its just me in real life no filters or walls to hide behind...and I tend to be quite balanced, boring and shy away from controversial subjects.

 

 

But yesterday I posted a link on my Facebook page to the Salt Lake Tribune article on the legal action that has been filed against President Monson in the UK.  I did not add any comments, just the standard FB link.  I guess I was naïve as I wasn't prepared for the vitriol that followed.  Merely posting the link started a domino effect of comments expressing great offence that I would even post such a link.  I was taken back that this story was viewed with  so much offense by members of the church, both friends and family, on my FB page...it really struck a nerve...and it wasn't pretty.

 

What I am trying to understand is why?  Why can't this subject be discussed?  While I understand that believers view President Monson as a prophet, should he be given special status? Is this subject off limits?  Did I cross some line? It seems that prophets of old were subjected to all kinds of public ridicule.  What is the nerve I struck by merely posting the link to this story?  I would really like to seek understanding.

 

Thanks for your help

 

PS...if you can't tell, I'm wearing my humble hat... 

I'm sorry you got the reaction you did.  It's hard to say why, because I don't often go to Facebook, and the only exhibits I have as evidence upon which I can make a judgment of you are your posts on this forum.  I frequent Facebook only infrequently.  I'm often rather plain spoken.  (Noooo! Really?! ) both on line and in real life.  Seldom, if ever, is my forthrightness intended to offend, but I do call it like I see it.  I suspect you might get a different reaction from people who have legal backgrounds than you would from people who do not.  Personally, I'm completely fascinated by the summons; by the allegations underlying it; by the inner workings of the English legal system (of which I am totally ignorant); by the fact that a private person can lay a criminal charge under the law that prevails there (in a manner of speaking, something similar is possible under U.S. law, but a person would have to present evidence to a grand jury, which would then decide whether to hand down a criminal indictment); and I've said elsewhere on the Board that I hope I can be forgiven for my keen interest in how this all plays out: it's like seeing a train wreck, not wanting to watch, but being unable to look away.

 

I can't say I know what you're going through, because I don't; there's no way I could.  My frame of reference is completely different.  It's like hearing someone describe the pain of childbirth versus actually going through it.  I don't have very many questions regarding the Church's foundational claims: like most anyone else with a brain who also believes, on some level, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it claims to be, however, that is not to say that I don't have questions about peripheral issues.  I look forward to some fascinating firesides in the hereafter or during the millennium, e.g., "Brother Joseph, What Were You Thinking?; Brother Brigham, What Were You Thinking?; and so on.  

 

That said, the "Gospel" doesn't "work" for me like some people (including, frustratingly, me, sometimes) think it ought to or say it should.  Some people envision that God is simply roughly analogous to Santa Claus: If we're "good," he gives us presents, and if we're not, he doesn't.  Well, I haven't gotten a lot of "presents" I'd really like: a decent job; the ability to support myself; at least modest material means; a family of my own, perhaps; for certain decisions I made with respect to my education (that I felt inspired to make at the time) to pay off (however modestly).  I'm far from perfect, but I do at least as good a job living the Gospel as someone for whom all of those things came far, far easier.  On some level, I'd like to tell God/Santa Claus, "You know what? This whole 'living the Gospel' thing just isn't what it's cracked up to be.  Why try?"  It doesn't seem as though I'm getting everything I bargained for in the deal.  But on the other hand, I can't deny the good fruit the Gospel has borne in my life.  I can't deny the clear witnesses I've received.  I can't deny the ways I have been blessed.

 

Many might say, "Well, how do you know you wouldn't have gotten many of those things without the Gospel?"  You know what? I don't.  Materially modest circumstances (and seemingly "denied blessings") notwithstanding, I don't do the things I do because I want Santa Claus to give me presents.  I do them because they fill my soul.  Christ said, "God sends rain on both the just and on the unjust, and causeth His sun to shine on both the evil and the good." After he lost everything Job (whether his story an allegory or not, it has things to teach us) said, "The Lord giveth, and the Lord hath taken away.  Blessed be the name of the Lord."  Buddhists say that the key to contentment is in not wanting.  There's something to that.  There's a lot I don't know.  According to Isaiah, "[The Lord's] thoughts are not [our] thoughts, neither are [His] ways [our] ways; for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are [His] thoughts higher than [our] thoughts, and [His] ways higher than [our] ways."  Nephi said, "I know not the meaning of all things; nevertheless, I know that [God] loveth His children."

 

Why do I stay?  Why do I keep trying?  I feel like Peter, when Christ asked him, "Will ye also go away?"  He said, "Lord, to whom shall we go?  Thou hast the words of eternal life."

 

[OK, so only my first two paragraphs are responsive to anything you wrote.  The rest is just babbling, but I needed to say it anyway! Thanks so much for listening! ]

[sheilauk]

Sadly all too true Kenngo! Too many years.

And before I found the LDS it was much much worse!

(not responding to post above but one quoting me by kenngo above that)

Edited February 8, 2014 by sheilauk

[The Nehor]

I've been banned from participation on the other thread covering this subject and I have a sincere question that I would like to ask the members of this board who are active participants in the church. Thought I'd post it here: (if someone wants to move it to its won thread that would be fine since I can't begin threads of my own...it is not my intent to hijack this tread)

 

Some background:

 

I have not been involved in the church for about 10+ years, all my family members remain active temple attending members, all in good standing.  In other words they are firm believers in the truth claims of Mormonism. While I get it that my online anonymous personality can oft time come off as extreme, controversial, harden heart apostateish or even bitter at times...(I don't see my self that way...but I get it)  I guess I do get some satisfaction sticking it to the church at times.  Anyway...on my FB page...its just me in real life no filters or walls to hide behind...and I tend to be quite balanced, boring and shy away from controversial subjects.

 

 

But yesterday I posted a link on my Facebook page to the Salt Lake Tribune article on the legal action that has been filed against President Monson in the UK.  I did not add any comments, just the standard FB link.  I guess I was naïve as I wasn't prepared for the vitriol that followed.  Merely posting the link started a domino effect of comments expressing great offence that I would even post such a link.  I was taken back that this story was viewed with  so much offense by members of the church, both friends and family, on my FB page...it really struck a nerve...and it wasn't pretty.

 

What I am trying to understand is why?  Why can't this subject be discussed?  While I understand that believers view President Monson as a prophet, should he be given special status? Is this subject off limits?  Did I cross some line? It seems that prophets of old were subjected to all kinds of public ridicule.  What is the nerve I struck by merely posting the link to this story?  I would really like to seek understanding.

 

Thanks for your help

 

PS...if you can't tell, I'm wearing my humble hat... 

 

You poor poor victim.......