“Mormon president ordered to appear in British court”

 

Thomas S. Monson, in the Tabernacle (and nervously not singing), moments before his announcement as the newest member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles.

 

 

One of the more audacious (and ridiculous and obnoxious) apostate maneuvers of recent memory:

 

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

 

It does seem to show, though, that some of these folks actually believe their claims that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are conscious deceivers.

 

Amazing.

 

 

Print Friendly

  • tusco

    I don’t know that it necessarily shows that…I do think it confirms the idea that “you can leave the Church, but you can’t leave alone.” In this case I suspect that someone simply wanted to give the Church a black eye by criminalizing the beliefs that he now found so offensive, and came up with the idea of connecting them to tithing.

  • peredehuit

    Thank you for sharing. I didn’t know about this. This type of thing happened a lot in the early Church. I don’t remember something like this happing in recent history. Am I wrong?

    Because of the exposure, I suspect that similar attempts will be made elsewhere.

  • utex

    How is it that Mr. Phillips sees “no evidence of God”, when I see God in everything. If his group accepts donations, I am going to have him extradited to the U.S. for providing no evidence of his “no evidence” claim.

    • Greg Neal

      Alma 30:44
      44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

  • ClintonKing

    So if I teach the doctrine of the Kingdom to my children and I live in the UK (I don’t, BTW), how long before I’ll get hauled into court on charges of child abuse?

    • DanielPeterson

      That’s one of the many, many problematic aspects of this truly absurd (but also profoundly dangerous) law suit.

  • Brock Lesnar

    Think of the ramifications to religious freedom (all religions) this would have it actually went forward. I know Phillips has an axe to grind, but does he really have any more of a beef than the rest of us? I don’t think so. Nobody forces him to contribute tithing. Nobody forces Jehovah’s Witnesses to tithe, or to proseyltize 50 hours a month. Nobody forces Theavada Buddhists to spend a portion of their youth as monks, or to become a monk fulltime in order to reach enlightenment in this life. Nobody forces Catholics to go to confession. Nobody forces Muslms to make the haaj during their lives. Nobody forces Native Americans to smoke peyote. Nobody forces Scientologists to pay for more and more auditing courses. (I know there’s been successful litigation against Scientology regarding the auditing fees, etc. However, I believe that’s because the classes have been deemed to be a product, whereas Mormon tithing doesn’t promise anything in return).

    What I’m saying here is that everyone has the right to believe what they want, even if it’s ultimately not fully true. If we decide to contribute monies or time because of faith, that’s our problem.

    I suppose for the time being that Thomas Monson will need to avoid traveling to Britain, unless the cops and sheriffs there simply disregard this silly magistrate’s summons.

    • GoodWill2

      I think Monson should go! Paul invited the opportunity to speak before Caesar! What a great opportunity for Bro. Monson to bear witness before the world!

      • Sinverguenza

        Exactly! There’s no such thing as bad publicity.

  • GoodWill2

    Several claims (charges) are made that the LDS Church (and the president thereof) intentionally deceive with regard to the following:

    1. The Book of Abraham is a literal translation of Egyptian papyri by Joseph Smith.
    2. The Book of Mormon was translated from ancient gold plates by Joseph |Smith, is the most correct book on earth and is an ancient historical record.
    3. Native Americans are descended from an Israelite family which left Jerusalem in 600 B.C.
    4. Joseph and Hyrum Smith were killed as martyrs in 1844 because they would not deny their testimony of the Book of Mormon.
    5. The Illinois newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor had to be destroyed because it printed lies about Joseph Smith.
    6. There was no death on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago.
    7. All humans alive today are descended from just two people who lived approximately 6,000 years ago.
    Are these “religious” claims? And, even if they weren’t, can someone be prosecuted for believing them (and for inducing others to do so)?

    1-2. I think one can be “forgiven” for believing that the BoA was a literal translation of Egyptian…because that’s what Joseph Smith thought it was! But it was received by revelation, by the “gift and power of God”, just as the BoM was!

    3. I think Latter-day Saints can be forgiven for thinking that all (or some) of the surviving native Amerindians are descended (or related) to the people of Lehi — for that was the consensus and understanding of their forefathers. Surely the exterminations, famines, pestilences and other destructions recorded (and unrecorded) have altered the genetic legacy we have today. What happened to the “children of Lehi” after Moroni sealed his record is unknown to us. Are the “Lamanites” of today “adopted”, by virtue of their skin color?

    4. Joseph and Hyrum were killed for many reasons. Joseph’s testimony of the Book of Mormon, while not the primary reason for his murder, was certainly a contributing factor, without which his “following” would not have survived.

    5. Destroying the newspaper was undoubtedly unlawful and probably a mistake. (Sometimes one should be punched in the nose, the law be damned!) Whether the press printed lies or truths, we don’t know for certain. Clearly the LDS Church (historic and modern) has misrepresented its history with regard to the practice of polygamy. (That pill remains to be fully swallowed.) But, for many, Joseph’s apparent perfidy was the last straw.

    6. Clearly there was physical death prior to 6000 years ago. But was “Adam” the first man by that name to dwell on this planet? The record is limited. The Bible is but one anthology of a tribe of fallen humans. It is not the only one. “Death” may have been construed allegorically and defined spiritually, to be confused with physical death.

    7. The blood of Adam today has infused and mingled with the blood of all mankind, whether of his loins or another’s. Spiritual life and death entered into the world because of Adam. He was the first “awakened” man of our generation of humankind.

  • RaymondSwenson

    Until the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Queen of England, as heads of the Anglican Church, are brouoght up on similar charges, and convicted, I don’t think there is any legal basis for this absurd lawsuit.
    In the common law that the US inherited from England, fraud requires that the accused make statements that he knows to be false, for the purpose of deceiving another person, and harming that person. A plaintiff would need to prove, not just the falsity of certain claims, but that the person accused knew them to be false. Where is even the allegation of that?
    On the other hand, the person bringing the action claims to have once been a church official, but to not believe in its teachings. He appears to be confessing that he, for some period of transition, was actually committing fraud of the kind he alleges. On the other hand, if he claims that he actually believed the teachings of the LDS Church, then he admits that it is possible for a reasonable person to have believed them sincerely for much of his life, and there is no reason to assume that someone who is in good standing in the Church is not sincere in the same beliefs. The case is a massive self-contradiction.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X