President Monson sued for teaching the earth is 6000 years old

[Zakuska]

Does anyone know how this ended up?

Disaffected British Mormon taking LDS prophet to court

A disaffected Mormon leader insists the LDS prophet is a fraud — and he's taking him to a British court in hopes of proving it.

Tom Phillips, a former Mormon bishop and stake president, asserts, among other claims, that LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson has "made representations ... which were ... untrue or misleading" — including that "there was no death on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago" and that "all humans alive today are descended from just two people who lived approximately 6,000 years ago" — to "make a gain for himself or another."

On Friday, a district judge in Westminster Magistrates' Court of London issued a summons to Monson, considered a "prophet, seer and revelator" in the 15 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to appear March 14 to answer the charges.

And Phillips expects to see the 86-year-old Mormon leader in court — unless Monson "pleads guilty."

"This is a serious matter," Phillips said Wednesday in a phone interview. "If President Monson believes in the Book of Mormon, he will show up. If he has any concern for Mormons in Britain, he will show up. And if he doesn't show up, then an arrest warrant will be issued."

The Utah-based faith and other legal experts see it quite differently.

"The LDS Church occasionally receives documents like this that seek to draw attention to an individual's personal grievances or to embarrass church leaders," LDS spokesman Cody Craynor said. "These bizarre allegations fit into that category."

British legal scholars "expressed bewilderment at the summonses, saying British law precludes challenges to theological beliefs in secular courts," according to a story in The Arizona Republic.

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/57500721-78/church-mormon-phillips-lds.html.csp

Any information would be appreciated.

[Calm]

As expected by the legal experts of the UK:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Media_efforts_by_MormonThink_managing_editor_Tom_Phillips

If you search on sheilauk's early posts, you will find she did an excellent analysis of the case and explanation of UK law.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Zakuska said:

Does anyone know how this ended up?

Any information would be appreciated.

The earth is 6,007 years old so he's within the statute of limitations.

[sheilauk]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

As expected by the legal experts of the UK:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Media_efforts_by_MormonThink_managing_editor_Tom_Phillips

If you search on sheilauk's early posts, you will find she did an excellent analysis of the case and explanation of UK law.

Thank you, calm! 😚

As for the case,  the only surprise to me was that the magistrate dealt with the abuse of process argument at the first hearing.  He then published his verdict which was very unusual.  As expected,  the case was thrown out as it was an abuse of the system.  I can't remember if Philips was ordered to pay costs.  In the end, it was a very small ripple.

[Calm]

IIRC, he was told by the magistrate that the magistrate could change his mind about having Phillips pay court costs....basically telling him to drop it and move on or he would be held responsible for his actions.  But that should be doublechecked by anyone who wants to quote me on that.  I may be mixing it up with someone's wishful thinking.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Calm

[Zakuska]

Thanks for the info all.

Calm,

From you FairMormon link... its not a very good defense . . . 

 

Quote

 

Question: Did President Monson or the Church as a “body corporate” actually make any or all of these statements during the period spanning from February 3, 2008 through December 2013?
Answer: No.
The answer seems to be “no” with respect to at least some of these claims. For example, we are not aware of any statement from President Monson or the Church as a “body corporate” during that period to the effect that there was no death on the planet before 6,000 years ago.

 

Patently false...  Even the churches own website ... to this day teaches this...

Quote

<snip>

Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48).

<snip>

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/death

Even the Fair website itself admits that this is false...
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall

Quote

There is overwhelming archaeological evidence of death having occurred on the earth for many millions of years

 

There is overwhelming archaeological evidence of death having occurred on the earth for many millions of years. For example, oil deposits are formed from the decomposed remains of ancient plants and animals. This is where Church teachings appear to contradict science, since many Latter-day Saint leaders and Church manuals have taught that there was no physical death on theentire earth prior to the fall of Adam. For example, this view is taught in the LDS Bible Dictionary:

 

Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 6:48). [1]

This interpretation has been shared by many Church authors, including President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie.[2] Consequently, the concept of no death before the Fall on the entire earth has made its way into many Church instructional manuals.

 

Since the teaching has made it into many manuals and President Monson sits on the board of the church that prints these manuals.

 

Quote

Question: Are all of these statements demonstrably false?
Answer: No
We can demonstrate that nearly all of them are matters of faith and not demonstrably false. Many of the statements are simply matters of opinion. (E.g., the Book of Mormon is the most correct on Earth.) Nearly all of them cannot be disproven. Of course, while it can be demonstrated that there was death before 6,000 years ago, it cannot be demonstrated that President Monson or the Church have taught this to Phillips, Bloor and Ralph between February 3, 2008 through December 2013.
 

Again demonstrably false since President Monson and the coorporation of the church print the manuals AND canonized scripture which contains the teaching in in its Bible dictionary to this very day.

 

Quote

Question: Did President Monson know these statements are false?

Answer: No

There is no evidence that President Monson thinks what he or the Church has been teaching between February 3, 2008 through December 2013 is false. While some have claimed that he doesn't really believe the Church is true, and has not testified of the foundational doctrines of the Church for many years, he has, in fact, done so. In summary, not all of these statements have been taught by President Monson and the Church during the relevant time period, those that have been taught are not demonstrably false, and there is every indication that President Monson believes the Church is true.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Media_efforts_by_MormonThink_managing_editor_Tom_Phillips/Responses_to_claims_made_in_Thomas_S._Monson_summons

I don't doubt that President Monson knows the Church is true. Just like you and I.  But its demonstrably false to claim that the church has not taught this "between February 3, 2008 through December 2013"  because the teaching is still to this very day in Church manuals and on the official church website.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Zakuska

[Calm]

Read the decision.  Perhaps it will make more sense.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Zakuska said:

I don't doubt that President Monson knows the Church is true. Just like you and I.  But its demonstrably false to claim that the church has not taught this "between February 3, 2008 through December 2013"  because the teaching is still to this very day in Church manuals and on the official church website.

And if the suit was against the church that might matter but amateur lawyer and professional village idiot Philips made it a private suit because he wanted to force Monson into the courtroom. These distinctions matter in a court case. Of course in a spurious case like this in the end it would have been thrown out either way.

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Thanks for the info all.

Calm,

From you FairMormon link... its not a very good defense . . . 

 

 

Patently false...  Even the churches own website ... to this day teaches this...

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/death

Even the Fair website itself admits that this is false...
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall

Since the teaching has made it into many manuals and President Monson sits on the board of the church that prints these manuals.

 

Again demonstrably false since President Monson and the coorporation of the church print the manuals AND canonized scripture which contains the teaching in in its Bible dictionary to this very day.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Media_efforts_by_MormonThink_managing_editor_Tom_Phillips/Responses_to_claims_made_in_Thomas_S._Monson_summons

I don't doubt that President Monson knows the Church is true. Just like you and I.  But its demonstrably false to claim that the church has not taught this "between February 3, 2008 through December 2013"  because the teaching is still to this very day in Church manuals and on the official church website.

Hey Zak, can you give some references to support that the church teaches the earth is 6,000 years old?

[Avatar4321]

even if we do the one day equals 1000 years strict interpretation of creation, the world would have to have been around at least 12,000 years.

I don't think we are bound to that interpretation though. The Lord can take as much time as He wants and call it a day.

[thesometimesaint]

Joseph Smith Jr. Thought it was 2.5 Billion years old. But his math was as off though not as badly as Archbishop Ussher's for pretty much the same reasons.

SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Age_of_the_Earth

[JAHS]

Quote

"there was no death on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago" and that "all humans alive today are descended from just two people who lived approximately 6,000 years ago"

The only thing that we know and teach today is that it has been about 6000 years since Adam left the Garden of Eden. There may have been some kind of death prior to Adam, but not the kind where a man's spirit is separated from his body. 

[The Nehor]

I visited some sites aligned against the Church and watched them wait with bated breath for this stunning promised announcement that was going to bring down the church. The thrill and the cheerleading was palpable. Then when it finally came out it was an anticlimax as, while a few hoped it would be everything promised, even most of those dullards realized this was laughable.

I know I laughed....a lot.

[Zakuska]

On 1/10/2016 at 2:18 AM, Calm said:

Read the decision.  Perhaps it will make more sense.

Makes things even worse.  The church taking a "non-stance" on something that is clearly taught in canon scripture as well as lesson manuals.

<snip>

Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48).

<snip>

 

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I visited some sites aligned against the Church and watched them wait with bated breath for this stunning promised announcement that was going to bring down the church. The thrill and the cheerleading was palpable. Then when it finally came out it was an anticlimax as, while a few hoped it would be everything promised, even most of those dullards realized this was laughable.

I know I laughed....a lot.

The thrill was probably a sense that they might get their family and life back.  Did you ever think of that?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

The thrill was probably a sense that they might get their family and life back.  Did you ever think of that?

How would that even work?   Are all of their friends and families member of the church because president Monson teaches that the earth is 6000 years old (if he even does, i'm still waiting on a reference) and so if he was sued and lost, all of those people would suddenly not believe in the church anymore?

 

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

The thrill was probably a sense that they might get their family and life back.  Did you ever think of that?

Get their families back?

Where did they go?

 

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How would that even work?   Are all of their friends and families member of the church because president Monson teaches that the earth is 6000 years old (if he even does, i'm still waiting on a reference) and so if he was sued and lost, all of those people would suddenly not believe in the church anymore?

 

 

I didn't make myself clear, I think those so called anti's are usually people that have discontinued belief.  They want the church to fail, because if it does they'll have their TBM families back.  Not to mention their neighbors and friends.  You don't understand bluebell, because I'm guessing you've never been there.  If you quit belief and your whole family, friends, ward members and neighbors finds out.  They might never look at you the same way again, they won't treat you the same way as before.  You more than likely will become an outsider to them.  Yes, families have disowned a family member over this.  Now think...if you are this person, wouldn't you want the church to come out as wrong.  Wouldn't you then be vilified as a non believer, and wouldn't those relationships be renewed?  I believe the suit involved more than President Monson providing untrue statistics.  ETA:  the first reference in my google search...http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/british-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-lds-church/article_76962854-dba8-5171-83e0-4bdb93eab230.html

"The summons that was filed laid out seven claims made by Mormons that Phillips believes are false. These types of claims are not new and historically began almost the moment Joseph Smith left the grove of trees where he first prayed as a teenager in 1820. Phillips took issue with the belief that the Book of Mormon was translated from ancient gold plates by Smith, and that all humans descend from two people, Adam and Eve, who lived approximately 6,000 years ago.

Phillips also took issue with tithing and other doctrinal points similar to the beliefs of most Christian denominations. Phillips said that he took the legal route after trying other methods for years to get church leaders to answer questions about parts of the doctrine. Phillips said he's protecting children raised in the church and standing up for church members who are branded as evildoers for questioning church fundamentals.

Addison said he thought the British courts would recoil in horror over the lawsuit and that it was using the law to make an anti-Mormon point."

Edited January 11, 2016 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The thrill was probably a sense that they might get their family and life back.  Did you ever think of that?

Nope.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Get their families back?

Where did they go?

 

They left the good ship Zion and want their family to come join them so they can be a family again like they used to be.....on the good ship Zion.

[Kenngo1969]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62767-president-monson-issued-a-court-summons-is-this-for-real/

http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/1319054.pdf
 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63126-tom-phillips-case-thrown-out/?page=1

 

 

 

 

 

[bluebell]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I didn't make myself clear, I think those so called anti's are usually people that have discontinued belief.  They want the church to fail, because if it does they'll have their TBM families back.  Not to mention their neighbors and friends.  You don't understand bluebell, because I'm guessing you've never been there.  If you quit belief and your whole family, friends, ward members and neighbors finds out.  They might never look at you the same way again, they won't treat you the same way as before.  You more than likely will become an outsider to them.  Yes, families have disowned a family member over this.  Now think...if you are this person, wouldn't you want the church to come out as wrong.  Wouldn't you then be vilified as a non believer, and wouldn't those relationships be renewed?  I believe the suit involved more than President Monson providing untrue statistics.  ETA:  the first reference in my google search...http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/british-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-lds-church/article_76962854-dba8-5171-83e0-4bdb93eab230.html

"The summons that was filed laid out seven claims made by Mormons that Phillips believes are false. These types of claims are not new and historically began almost the moment Joseph Smith left the grove of trees where he first prayed as a teenager in 1820. Phillips took issue with the belief that the Book of Mormon was translated from ancient gold plates by Smith, and that all humans descend from two people, Adam and Eve, who lived approximately 6,000 years ago.

Phillips also took issue with tithing and other doctrinal points similar to the beliefs of most Christian denominations. Phillips said that he took the legal route after trying other methods for years to get church leaders to answer questions about parts of the doctrine. Phillips said he's protecting children raised in the church and standing up for church members who are branded as evildoers for questioning church fundamentals.

Addison said he thought the British courts would recoil in horror over the lawsuit and that it was using the law to make an anti-Mormon point."

Let's hope most of the people who have discontinued belief in the church are not that self centered.  But my question had to do with the premise that Monson's losing such a lawsuit would destroy the church and suddenly take away every believer's testimony.  I don't see that such a thing would happen because of a lawsuit on how old the earth is.

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Let's hope most of the people who have discontinued belief in the church are not that self centered.  But my question had to do with the premise that Monson's losing such a lawsuit would destroy the church and suddenly take away every believer's testimony.  I don't see that such a thing would happen because of a lawsuit on how old the earth is.

I agree that the lawsuit would probably not destroy the church. But don't really agree that the person is self centered, where's the empathy?  Put your self in their shoes.  Imagine how you might feel.  

Edited January 12, 2016 by Tacenda

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 4:22 PM, bluebell said:

Hey Zak, can you give some references to support that the church teaches the earth is 6,000 years old?

D&C 77, if memory serves.

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree that the lawsuit would probably not destroy the church. But don't really agree that the person is self centered, where's the empathy?  Put your self in their shoes.  Imagine how you might feel.  

Think of something you love, that you feel gives you so much happiness and makes your life better. 

Now, how would you describe someone who is excited about you losing that thing because it will make their life better. 

Isn't "self centered" a reasonable adjective?