Calm Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Perhaps they are talking about the Book of Abraham. But it is already agreed by the Church what we have doesn't match.
iriemon Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 The document handed by Phillips lawyers was in response to the Church's lawyers complaining that Phillips is an attention seeker, and how rediculous that it was released to the public. Phillips laywers responded saying that Anderson, published the same information. It didn't look good for the church and Anderson in that instance. "Publicity ... Philips lawyer hands magistrate a document , uk version of huff post , talking about summons , monson pic on it , quote from church ,,, the one where they say bizarre allegations ,,,, Neil Anderson -the qc the church have used today , saying the court were in error issuing the summonses ,,, a QC giving quotes to press that a case he is defending is nonsense !!! DRAMA!!"The prosecutors are complaining about the defence speaking about the case? What about what Phillips was doing? Doesn't he count as one of the prosecutors?"Going through judge Roscoe’s process, confirming that she followed due process .It was not a rubber stamp summons; judge roscoe even rephrased the summons. “After much consideration and thought”."What are the implications here? 1
MichelleD Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 (edited) Does anyone know if these 6 lawyers are LDS?From what I've read, they are not members. I think there are 5 men and 1 woman. Edited March 15, 2014 by MichelleD 1
Calm Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 (edited) http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57683745-219/church-phillips-mormon-case.html.csp http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=29064260 http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865598685/British-judge-hears-arguments-in-case-LDS-Church-calls-mischief.html?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2F Edited March 15, 2014 by calmoriah
Calm Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 So for those following at home, "Anderson" = Neil Addison, correct? Had Addison already been retained by the Church when he commented on the case to Dennis Wagner on 4 February (the day the summons was made public)? If not, I don't see what Addison is supposed to have done wrong.Looking forward to hearing answer, wonder why it wasn't given or if given reported (assume not given because the prosecutor came last).Just as an FYI...Apparently Addison's web page:http://www.religionlaw.co.uk/servicestext.htm
Janadele Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 LDS represented by six lawyers. Antis represented three lawyers. 3 reporters in Court. 6 Antis in Court. 7 hours Court time. Adjourned till Thursday for directions from Judge.LDS Church lawyers attempted to have proceedings dismissed on jurisdiction grounds, and improperly served summons.
Stargazer Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 I was amused by a comment in the DesNews about the case not being "bizarre" because it was a serious charge with serious repercussions. Yes, like I would have to say that if they charged me with multiple counts of murder in the Jack the Ripper case, well, the potential punishment would be serious. I think the plaintiff has just about as much chance of prevailing as I have of being found guilty for being Jack the Ripper. On the other hand, there is no such thing as bad publicity, and this will get the church even more in the public spotlight. Either way, we win.
Coreyb Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 I just hope the Judge was wearing one of those curly white wigs
Thinking Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Perhaps they are talking about the Book of Abraham. But it is already agreed by the Church what we have doesn't match. Agreed by the Church or by the unofficial apologists who usually have some sort of disclaimer stating that their opinions do not represent official Church doctrine? The only official statement that I know of isA Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.Correct me if I am wrong.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865598685/British-judge-hears-arguments-in-case-LDS-Church-calls-mischief.htmlThere is this"Mischief" is a good way to characterize it. It harkens back to Joseph Smith's enemies abusing the legal system for the purpose of harassing him. 3
Calm Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 (edited) Agreed by the Church or by the unofficial apologists who usually have some sort of disclaimer stating that their opinions do not represent official Church doctrine?The only official statement that I know of isCorrect me if I am wrong.I am thinking of Nibley's publishing in the Instructor or Improvement Era shortly after the Church gained possession.Perhaps I didn't phrase that correctly. Perhaps someone more awake than I am can elaborate.Add-on: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Church_disclosure_of_%22Book_of_the_Dead%22"There is no evidence that the Church has ever claimed that any of the 10 remaining fragments contain text which is contained in the Book of Abraham."I am not in any way implying that JS never had the actual text. Just how can it be proved that a translation doesn't match an original text if it is unsure what and where that original text is to be found. Edited March 15, 2014 by calmoriah
why me Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 "Mischief" is a good way to characterize it. It harkens back to Joseph Smith's enemies abusing the legal system for the purpose of harassing him.This is true. And yet over a hundred years later, we are still defending joseph against the trumped up charges. In some sort of way, the internet has made us defense lawyers for joseph smith. This is something that his enemies could have never imagined..
Scott Lloyd Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 This is true. And yet over a hundred years later, we are still defending joseph against the trumped up charges. In some sort of way, the internet has made us defense lawyers for joseph smith. This is something that his enemies could have never imagined..But could there be any more vivid fulfillment of Moroni's prophecy that Joseph's "name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people"? But I'm getting off topic here.
cdowis Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 (edited) "There is no evidence that the Church has ever claimed that any of the 10 remaining fragments contain text which is contained in the Book of Abraham."I am not in any way implying that JS never had the actual text. Just how can it be proved that a translation doesn't match an original text if it is unsure what and where that original text is to be found. The point is that the church has no official position on how the translation was made, and exactly what papyrus, if any, he translated. One possibility is the catalyst theory which proposes that the papyrus merely inspired him to reproduce the record of Abraham similar to the book of Moses, and it did not actually contain his writings. It is a matter of faith. Edited March 15, 2014 by cdowis
Bikeemikey Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 The point is that the church has no official position on how the translation was made, and exactly what papyrus, if any, he translated. One possibility is the catalyst theory which proposes that the papyrus merely inspired him to reproduce the record of Abraham similar to the book of Moses, and it did not actually contain his writings.It is a matter of faith.Good thing we recently updated the intro to the book! And the dissenters still claim we are not lead by revelation! 1
David T Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Agreed by the Church or by the unofficial apologists who usually have some sort of disclaimer stating that their opinions do not represent official Church doctrine?The only official statement that I know of isCorrect me if I am wrong.From the 2014 D&C Seminary Manual:At the present time we simply do not know the exact nature of the relationship between the book of Abraham and the papyri Joseph Smith possessed. There are various theories proposed as to how the prophet translated these writings, but we simply do not know the details. We do know that the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham by the gift and power of God
CA Steve Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 I am thinking of Nibley's publishing in the Instructor or Improvement Era shortly after the Church gained possession.Perhaps I didn't phrase that correctly. Perhaps someone more awake than I am can elaborate.Add-on: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Church_disclosure_of_%22Book_of_the_Dead%22"There is no evidence that the Church has ever claimed that any of the 10 remaining fragments contain text which is contained in the Book of Abraham."I am not in any way implying that JS never had the actual text. Just how can it be proved that a translation doesn't match an original text if it is unsure what and where that original text is to be found.With the facsimiles we have many instances of the original text (or glyph) and JS's translation of the same text.
Avatar4321 Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 I was amused by a comment in the DesNews about the case not being "bizarre" because it was a serious charge with serious repercussions. Yes, like I would have to say that if they charged me with multiple counts of murder in the Jack the Ripper case, well, the potential punishment would be serious. I think the plaintiff has just about as much chance of prevailing as I have of being found guilty for being Jack the Ripper.On the other hand, there is no such thing as bad publicity, and this will get the church even more in the public spotlight. Either way, we win. Especially if it was a private prosecution.
sheilauk Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57683745-219/church-phillips-mormon-case.html.csphttp://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=29064260http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865598685/British-judge-hears-arguments-in-case-LDS-Church-calls-mischief.html?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2FThe second two are brief and factual and identical reports. Ms Stack who wrote the Trib article needs to read my posts! She makes a false comment that the nature of the hearing changed in the intervening weeks between issue of summons and hearing. Patently untrue. It was the first hearing and remained the first hearing!! It was always an option to argue for dismissal at that hearing. She surely didn't think the trial would take place on Friday did she?Mr. Phillips is obviously a glass half full person. He can't seem to grasp that making a religious statement which is a belief though couched as a fact and even if scientifically contradicted is not a misrepresentation. Also I wonder what his evidence is that connects those particular statements to the payment of a voluntary donation/tithe. I don't think you need to believe any of them to receive a temple recommend? 4
sheilauk Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 I just hope the Judge was wearing one of those curly white wigs . Sadly (or perhaps not, they are hot and uncomfortable) Magistrates Courts are plain and simple with few trappings and definitely no curly white wigs! No robes either. Everyone looks like businessmen including the judges. 1
Truth 101 Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) It is quite a landmark case, and as I've tried to explain to my parents why it's different. In the mormon church you must pay tithing to receive full benefits of the church (endowments, sealings, temple recommend, etc.) in other churches tithing is anonymous and optional. In the LDS church tithing and donation is kept in full record. However, personally I think this case will go nowhere. Edited March 16, 2014 by Truth 101
MelodyMP3 Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 I'm wondering how JS was able to write the Book of Abraham...and not rewrite the lost book of Lehi? 1
Recommended Posts