This is stupid because nobody can make you pay tithing. It is up to you and it
is your decision and choice, that simple.
A man who still uses his priesthood to forthput should not make such claims
before a judge.In other words:You still believe; how can
you claim that another does not?
Last time I checked, DB is still selling books by Paul Dunn. Most of his
'faith building' stories were lies and yet the church still allows
them to be sold. Isn't that condoning fraud if not the actual act of it
all for the sake of making money?
This whole story has just made me facepalm from day one. For all the reasons
listed in this article though, I knew that it was ridiculous and would go
nowhere. Shame on the UK justice system for trying to give crass anti-religious
bigotry a voice in a court of law.
President Monson doesn't see 1p of the money that is paid into the church
by its members... neither does any other member, unless they are in need of
assistance from the welfare funds, which are paid from fast offerings, not
tithing.I sustain President Monson as Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and as
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also sustain all
other church leaders as designated at this moment in time, in their respective
positions and callings.
Confirmation bias (the spirit) does not confirm truth.Truth confirms
The Bible says to pay tithes. I pay tithes. Nothing will stop that. I love the
Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and other scriptures that we have. I know
that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God, and I know that The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only true and living Church on the earth. My
testimony is based on what the Spirit has confirmed to me, not on DNA, unseen
papyri, unseen plates or anything else anybody wants to bring up.I
received a strong witness before I was baptised 31 years ago, that Joseph Smith
was a true Prophet of God, and that what he brought forth for us was also true.
I know that God knows that I know it and I could never deny it. If anybody is
not happy with the church, leave it and leave it alone. You cannot change the
course of it, no unhallowed hand can stop this work. Love the Church, love
President Monson and whomever will follow as Prophet. It is the Spirit that
works through us and confirms to us the truthfulness of the Gospel. And nothing
else is needed.
MiP wrote:"I still hold out hope that Mr. Phillips will see the
error of his ways and repent."He did repent. That is why he is
I still hold out hope that Mr. Phillips will see the error of his ways and
repent. Also, this story reminded me: Abinadi really tore it up in
Tasha says- "Yes he is (an ex-mormon). He's not excommunicated yet
(that I'm aware of) but he is definitely an ex-mormon in that he
doesn't believe and doesn't largely affiliate with the church
(summoning monson to court definitely doesn't count). "You
may certainly call a member of the church who doesn't attend or believe an
ex-Mormon if you want to. That just isn't the definition that is generally
accepted. The church has 15 million members, more than half of whom do not
attend, worldwide. I don't think the church is going to start saying there
are 7 million members. Do you?
This is just another reason why Scotland should break away from the United
Kingdom. If you know of any Scots who can vote in the September 18th, 2014
referendum for independence, please encourage them to vote for common sense. Per
capita the church has more member is Scotland than the rest of the UK. FREEDOM!
FINstory, likely you never heard before. read it. not specifically abt
tithing, but abt honesty re. $.i love this storyread Acts 4:31
thru 5:11i love the bible
TEMPLE RECOMMENDSbishop and stake president in separate private interviews
w/ candidate ask 20+ questions re. faith, belief, church leaders, honesty, word
of wisdom, scriptures, sexual purity, morally, ethica, upright, etc.
"money" is never mentioned; "full & honest tithing" is.
candidate answers according to his/her own interpretation. simple questions
soliciting simple clear answerspositive answers results in a
recommend; a "no" may require clarification, possible encouragement to
repent or other action the candidate should take to become worthy. decision to
issue or not is based on candidate answers of yes-no.one of final
questions is "do you consider yourself worthy to enter the House of the
Lord?" a "yes" answer produces a recommend. "no" or
"i'm not sure" results in an explain yourself. i often wonder if i
"am wothy".bishop makes his decision ON THE SPOT according
to answers received from candidate. candidate makes appt with stake presidency -
process is repeated with decision made on the spot. bishop & stake
presidency don't discuss the request nor the answers. each decision is
based according to answers the candidate has declared abt him/herself.
simplified versionsTITHINGchurch says 1/10 of
"increase"church does not define "increase"; candidate
does. candidate is asked, "are you an honest & full tithe donor?"
the answer is donor's interpretation of "increase" and
"honest-full"bishop doesn't know person's
salary/gross/net/increase, or $ figure nor sources. i receive $ from taxable
& nontaxable vestments + SocSec. i pay 1/10th of the sum total of those
numbers, rounded up to the next $1. my conscience says pay on everything
received - "increase": i didn't have it moments ago and now i do.
it's all tithed. that is just me
Considering the appearance of Sharon, there are clearly non-Lehites mentioned in
the Book of Mormon. A close reading will also show that the only way to
population could be as large as the Jacob/Sharon episode requires is the
incorporation of new peoples. John L. Sorenson's writings give much light
on this topic.I however hold that President Monson should not
appear. It would give a horrible precedent both to using the courts to persecute
religious leaders and using them to harass and limit the uses of time by
Who knows whether Phillips is a former, or current member? Some articles claim
one thing, others make a different claim. Based on the reliability of the
claims, maybe Phillips didn't do any more than become inactive. And
by now, who knows he hasn't been excommunicated in the time since this
first came out? Or repented? Just sayin'.
The accusations do not even add up. The connection between the Book of Abraham
and tithing is not proved. This is a ridiculous attempt at
grandstanding. It is also a sad comment on the lack of religious freedom in
Pres. Monson and the Church will stand on their own merits as always. The
British are not unfamiliar with the Latter-Day-Saints and while I admit to not
knowing the legal system in Britain, I suspect that there is an element which
compels the Justice to let the plaintiff be heard. That Pres. Monson was
called to appear might also be a formality. Personally, I think he should go,
it' a great missionary opportunity. While we might be shocked, we've
know these sorts of things were going to happen (and accelerate) in the last
President Monson, as prophet, of a Church utilizing voluntary tithing donations
to give supplies and aid at disasters worldwide and otherwise, feeds, clothes,
& immunizes many world citizens who'd have to go without.Furthermore: we are to obtain our own testimony that paying tithing will bless
our own lives. If we don't want to donate, we can choose not to.If
President Monson is called to trial for his testimony, none can dispute his
testimony. The Holy Ghost testifies only in our minds and hearts. While
scientific theories are adopted, later to be replaced by others. Man
possibly wasn't on this earth before Adam. Before that, this earth
could've been part of another planet, explaining the age of fossils 20,000+
years old. Anyway, I say no one knows for sure how old fossils are, unless they
themselves have kept track of them all those years.Limited evidence of
Lamanite ancestors means nothing. In fact, there is growing evidence of
Caucasian people on the American continent thousands of years ago.If this
issue is pursued, it will probably, as historically, give the church wider
I pay tithing to obey a commandment I sincerely believe in, and not by coercion,
flattery, trickery or any other subtle device man can conceive. I want to be
worthy to enter the temple to finally have the ordinances and sealing performed
that I've desired for years. No one can take away the love I feel from
giving freely of my substance back into the hands from which it came-The
Lord's. I love Him, and I love our president.
@haloueenAgreed. Why is it that they don't just go away and
forget about it if things were so TERRIBLE for them?
Anyone else noticing how biased this article is? I mean, its title alone is: "'Bizarre' British summons roundly criticized ... ".
"Bizarre" is so biased a term that you rarely see it to
describe a judge's decision. Bizarre is not typically a fair description of
an issue having two sides. Also, it certainly is not being roundly
criticized, unless you only select from a small group of critics. So that part
is only accurate if one keeps blinders on.Would we as Mormons react
with similar positivity towards this type of tactic if the title were used to
advocate something we don't like? For example, how would we feel if an
article about Mormons were titled, e.g. "Bizarre Mormons roundly
criticized..."?Let's consider following the Golden Rule.
Let's definitely not use in our Mormon sanctioned news sources the same
tactics we criticize when used by anti-Mormons.
Many interesting comments here.Regarding the use of tithing for
good: My family and I just returned from the central Peru area. In some of the
poorest (or seemingly poorest) cities, we saw beautiful chapels as a shining
light to the community. We saw LDS missionaries sharing the gospel.A
general authority told us Peru is growing rapidly. Satan (for those who believe
and for those who don't) does all he can to thwart such progress. He's
trying in England. Be prepared for other trials in the future as time grows
Some of the charges (per the UK's The Telegraph):"Among
teachings it singles out as suspect are the assertion that the Book of Mormon
was 'translated from ancient gold plates by Joseph Smith [and] is the most
correct book on Earth and is an ancient historical record' and that the
Mormons’ Book of Abraham, was translated from Egyptian papyri by Joseph
Smith. Other beliefs cited include the assertion that 'Native
Americans are descended from an Israelite family which left Jerusalem in 600
BC' and that 'all humans alive today are descended from just two
people who lived approximately 6,000 years ago.'"
I'm shocked that there are still members of the church who believe the Book
of Abraham was actually translated from the papyrus that Joseph Smith purchased.
Even the church now states that it wasn't and they call the Book of
Abraham "inspired scripture" and say that Joseph received it through
divine revelation. Keep up folks! The papyrus was NOT burned in the Chicago
fire...the church has it and it even has writings and notes on it written by
Joseph Smith. That is not even debatable anymore.
I read the summons and its crazy. It would be interesting to see the Church
sends a British Barrister or Lawyer who is an active member (there are many in
Britain who are) to answer the summons. Could turn into a missionary moment. Still that summons should have never been issued. Here in the States the
Judge would be put on judicial review.
Courts are particularly ill-suited to be the arbiters of religious belief and
doctrine. There is probably not a religion on the entire planet that hasn't
had disaffected members and opponents take issue with the factual basis for
their teachings. The better solution is to withdraw from the membership of a
church if you can't accept their teachings, or just don't join it in
the first place. Unlike Islamic countries, the civilized nations of the world
don't impose criminal or civil penalties for apostasy, and one can freely
leave a religion, criticize it and argue against it without need to involve the
legal system. This case reminds me of the divorce cases we'd
occasionally see during my years as a paralegal, where the goal gradually
changed from dividing the assets and ending the relationship to seeing how much
harm one party could do to the other.
RE: Dan Maloy, My main points were Honesty and Loyalty:1. President
Joseph F. Smith In 1904 was questioned in the senate for Mormon senator Reed
Smoot. Polygamy continued despite His word to stop. Yet,In 1906,
sixth LDS President Joseph F. Smith "pleaded guilty before Judge M. L.
Rictchie in the District Court Friday to the charge of cohabitating with four
women in addition to his lawful wife." He was fined $300, the maximum
allowed.2. That members were required to take oaths in the temples
to seek revenge on the United States. (See: oath of vengeance)
Its all very sad and I hope nothing comes of it.
Just what is a religious liberty advocate? In today's parlance it is a
person or a group that needs government advocacy and laws to promote it's
faith. Any religion or religious group that needs government intervention and
support to promote it's faith is not a religious organization in the first
place. It has transformed itself into an institution as corrupt and complex as
the government itself. It has lost it's way from the very basis of
PS: Now -- the Facsimilies which are printed in the PGP. They were from a
different scroll, and they were placed on display in the Nauvoo temple.
Although there is a remarkable correlation between some aspects of the
facsimiles and what Joseph had to say about them, they are NOT part of BoA.Think about this: If Joseph had one of the BoM plates, would he display
it publicly? Think what we know of the protection of the plates…If the facsimiles were the source of BoA, sacred scripture, would Joseph
casually display them in a public building?Heres a brief summary --
> The "source" scroll for BoA is nowhere to be found, probably
burned during Chicago fire> The existing JSP is a funerary papyrus
[Breathings, Type II]> The size/condition of the existing JSP does not
match the [limited] descriptions of the BoA source papyrus> The
facsimiles are not the source for BoA -- No one of authority has claimed they
are [including Joseph]Those who claim that JSP "proves"
Joseph, subsequently the church, fraudulent… are either deliberately
bearing false witness or they are mis-led by others who are bearing false
Ok, Friends -- The JSP [Joseph Smith Papyrus] that was translated by
the University of Chicago, School of Oriental Studies is NOT the source of the
Book of Abraham. I have read it. I have translated it.It is a
"Book of Breathings," type II. No two breathings texts are exactly
alike. So -- For those who claim that this text is not the source of BoA, you
are right!But -- The church has not said the JSP is the source of
the BoA. Yes, many members believe that it is. But -- it ain't [sorry to
be so redundant].The text that Joseph had at his source material was
undoubtedly a copy of a copy of a copy [etc]… and the JSP source was
probably destroyed in the Chicago fire. It is my understanding [perhaps
incorrect] that Lewis Bidamon sold the Egyptian materials formerly in the
possession of Lucy Mack Smith.
Have you ever wondered why people who become dis-enchanted with The Church
simply cannot leave it alone? Interesting!
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I feel
privileged to pay my tithing. I want to contribute to the building of temples
and meetinghouses. I want to have a part in building up the Lord's Kingdom
here on earth. I am grateful to belong to such an organization that
accomplishes so much good in the world. President Thomas S. Monson is a
righteous man who has freely donated so much of his life in doing the
dwayneSo if you really believe that, then you must also indict all
the Christian leaders, even Muslims and Jews. They all believe in the law of
tithe. But why stop there? What about all of our political leaders
that steal your money, waste it and give it to those that want to take it from
you. I can't speak of other denominations, but I am sure on
the whole they are good in using tithes to build their church and help those
that need it. I know the LDS are not obsconding monies for personal gain. LDS
church is one of the most humanitarian in the world. In major world
catastrophes they are the ones to provide the necessities to get people back on
their feet, regardless of their beliefs or whether they ever gave a penny as a
tithe.I can't believe that people are so filled with hate in
their hearts to try to sully this basic ancient principle.Love you
Ced,Already there were the preceding Jaredites that occupied the land. And
the unknown but nearby Mulekites were contemporaries to Lehi.Lehi's posterity would be protected from the knowledge of other nations.
This could only happen if a party arrived from a foreign nation, and then
returned home to report to its leaders who could then send more and more
settlers, armies, etc, but history records no such interchange that would
represent coming to this 'knowledge of other nations'. The
Book of Mormon doesn't even call the Nephites or Lamanites
'nations' but 'people'. Only at the end in Moroni 8 are the
Nephites referred to as a nation, then again as a people as if to clarify.A good read on this topic comes from John L. Sorensen: When Lehi's
Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?And the old
introduction says 'principal' ancestors. The first definition of the
adjective 'principal' in Websters is 'most important'. It
says nothing about numerical representation. The new wording 'among'
could mean 99% or 1%, which is all you can really draw from the text of the Book
"@ BCA - Murrieta, CA "Tom Phillips is not an ex-Mormon."Uh,
you might want to read the article again:Article quote: "The
allegations were made by a former Mormon, Thomas Phillips,..."You're welcome."Thanks for the attempted clarification.
However, the reason I wrote that Tom Phillips is not an ex-Mormon is because the
article has it wrong and I was trying to clarify. I follow Tom's internet
postings and have listened to podcasts. He is currently still a member. No
matter what the article says.
To ThinksIThink, oragami, and othersPlease see the post of Cats at
that sheds light on the Book of Abraham. John Gee in A Guide to the Joseph Smith
Papyri also does a good job of clarifying. There were actually 4
sets of papyri and, it appears, only one was used for the Book of Abraham. This
papyri roll was preserved by Joseph Smith, while some of the rest were cut up
and displayed in frames. It is these cut pieces that the Church recovered from
the New York Museum. The contemporary (1840s) physical description of the papyri
of the Book of Abraham differs sharply from these recovered cutouts.After the death of Joseph Smith, the whole collection was split up with the
majority, most likely including the Abraham scroll, going to a museum in Chicago
that was burned down in the great Chicago fire. It is presumed that the rest of
the collection is what we have recovered today. Only one of the original three
facsimiles is in that collection.Also interesting is that many of
the previously unknown details about the traditions of Abraham revealed in the
Book of Abraham have since been confirmed by subsequently discovered ancient
A wise man once said "The disturbance caused by "The BOA" papyrus
has more or less subsided. Dr. Nibley effectively deflected the criticism at its
height, time has done the rest. His Improvement Era articles satisfied the
unsophisticated minds of the general church population; the faux pas was laid to
rest. Those who remember the controversy will choose never to speak of it again.
History will be whitewashed, new generations of Mormons will never become aware
of it. Eventually it will be forgotten, just like Brigham's Adam God
Theory. The church has learned that if issues such as "The
BOA" or Lamanites are allowed to quietly retire, they gradually sort
themselves out, dissipate. The less the leaders say about these controversies,
the easier the transition. They have an enormous base of believers. If an
uncomfortable issue arises, there is no end of fanatical believers willing to
step forward and defend god or do anything to support his kingdom. They believe
their stalwart defense will be counted to them as righteousness. It is always
better for the "spin" to originate with them; then if it turns out to be
stupid, it cannot be laid at the feet of the leadership."
Religion cannot be proven or disproven in a court of law. Neither can
evolution, creationism or many other controversial topics.
Cedric,Verse9 relates an if-then promise. If righteous, then keep
the land/dwell in safety forever. The Book of Mormon makes clear the people
didn't keep their "if" portion of that promise.You
equate "this land" with the whole American continent. That seems
simplistic. Lehi's party arrived roughly contemporaneously with
Mulek's, who arrived in time to meet Coriantumr, a Jaredite (another
nation) whose people had dwelt *somewhere* in the Americas.I read
the passage in context. Lehi was from Canaan, a land roughly the size of New
Jersey, which had been overrun by many nations--Egyptians, Philistines,
Assyrians, Babylonians, etc.--depriving Israel of an inheritance. "This
land" need not be continental for Lehi's children to preserve an
inheritance.Your opinions of "what the Church taught" are
just that. Quotes since the 1830s state that the Book of Mormon gives an
account of the ancient inhabitants of this land. It does. Many in the 1830s
thought those "inhabitants" referred to the mound-builders; maybe they
did. But certainly no one thought the mound-builders were the Americas'
ONLY ancient inhabitants. I know of no teaching that Lehi was the ONLY ancestor
of the Native Americans.
@origami. I have read the Book of Abraham and I have felt the spirit testify to
me that it is true. So I don't care if the source of that book is a common
funerary text as the anti-Mormoms say, or translated from the scrolls as Joseph
Smith says in the introduction. If it makes me feel a burning in the bosom it
is a true book and of God. Scientific evidence cannot be used to prove whether
something comes from God, only the spirit can do that. So they should leave
President Monson alone.
We've got some weird old magistrates in this country. The only people who
will benefit from this farce will, as usual, be the lawyers. Send Jeffrey R
Holland!! He'll sort them out!! :)
@ sharrona - layton, UTRE: Northern Lights, yes, here we go again."(Reed Smoot)After years of hearings, the remaining charges of the
opposition included:That church leaders were still practicing(illegally)
plural marriage. Apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley were still
performing plural marriages in Mexico and Canada, though Taylor was later
excommunicated for the practice.That the church was exerting too
much influence on Utah politics.That members were required to take oaths
in the temples to seek revenge on the United States. (See: oath of
vengeance)"You DO realize that you did NOT address the main
point that 'Northern Lights' refuted, right?You said that
Pres. Smith claimed to receive no "revelation".Yet
'Northern Lights' clearly pointed out that was taken out of context
and even provided you the page number of the document that proved Pres. Smith
did in fact believe he had received "revelation".And yet you
did not acknowledge that refutation.Why not?
@ Northern Lights - Arco, ID "Sharrona, yes, here we go again.......anyone
who argues your particular point has probably stopped on page 483 of the record
of the Smooth hearings without proceeding on to page 484 where President Smith
stated that he has had "impressions of the spirit" upon his mind
"very frequently." To many LDS, that is a common form of revelation. I
don't expect he could have expanded on that thought given the hostile
nature of the hearing."Thank you for posting this. I distinctly
remember a former missionary comnpanion telling me this "I have never
received a revelation" claim. He loved trying to rile me and would tell me
stuff like this all the time. Sadly (but not much of a surprise, looking back
on it) he was later excommunicated.My testimony?Still
here and growing stronger. Thanks again for refuting this falsehood
about Pres. Smith.
So many of these comments assert knowledge of fact by means of belief. You
can't make something true by believing it. You can testify that you
believe it is true, but when facts contradict your inner conviction, I cannot
believe that some part of you recognizes that you've lied to yourself in
order to avoid facing what could be a hard truth to swallow. Fact
does not need equivocation nor does it need a backstory or context. When a
church has to say "this doesn't prove or disprove" or "these
quotes are taken out of context" it's to protect a narrative that they
do not want questioned. "Science is questions that may never be
answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."
@ BCA - Murrieta, CA "Tom Phillips is not an ex-Mormon."Uh,
you might want to read the article again:Article quote: "The
allegations were made by a former Mormon, Thomas Phillips,..."You're welcome.
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." - Matthew 7:20 That scripture alone exonerates the leadership of the LDS church, the church
itself, and it's teachings, in my opinion. I'm pleased to see the
general consensus is that this charge should never have even seen the light of
day, since this is plainly a false charge from a disaffected ex-LDS fellow with
an axe to grind; but at some point such a ludicrous charge might manage to gain
political momentum somewhere.Ideally, God's children wouldn't
allow themselves to become so prideful, rebellious, and hard-hearted, but the
scriptures show us that it has happened repeatedly in every civilization. If the
secular anti-religionists do reach such a critical mass that they could force
such an action through a court, I'm grateful to know that no court or law
anywhere would be able to find sufficient evidence to give credence to such
charges.But that would be no victory. The only sinless one to ever walk
this earth was convicted in such a way.
@ Fuzz - Springville, UT - "This is not Satan. Satan cannot issue a summons.
Satan can't do anything. He does not have a body or power over
anything."No, it isn't "Satan" hiself that filed
the paperwork that got this lawsuit/summons rolling, but he surely is the
impetus/driving force behind it all.On a different note, all I had
to read was "former (LDS) member" and I saw all I needed to know.It is no coincidence that the Book of Mormon has a passage of scripture
in it which describes how a group of people, after having received the light of
Christ and then having decided to leave the gospel of Jesus Christ, that when
later on shown the error of their choice, that only ONE returned.To
those who know, that is a warning of massive, massive proportions.
I would love for President Monson to attend. I would love to know
where President Monson said those 'exact words'. A lot of these
aren't even LDS actual beliefs. Especially the part about the BOA and
literal translations. I understand this man was hurt, he was
summarily dismissed as State President, his wife divorced him and his children
have distance themselves from him. He is left with nothing but his anger and
regrets. The LDS Church needs to do a better job with their leadership.
They need to get them counseling when they are released from high governing
callings. They need to help smoother their transition, so they don't have
to fill the "power void" with dark hobbies. They need to be taught that
simply because everyone doesn't hang on their every word anymore, that
doesn't mean they are of no worth.
@ CEDThere is no such thing as any original script from the BM or
Abraham.If Joseph Sm. would live today still, he could reproduce any
scripture of ancient time by means of the Urim and Thummim. Why ? Because
everything that was recorded by Prophets on earth would have been recorded in
heaven as well. If you have taken care of receiving a faithful
testimony regarding the words of Moroni or Abraham then you may be sure in
having received the priviledge of knowing that such records are kept in
heaven.After that we may find small beams of light in research that
assures us, we are on the right track.It does not say the Land was
preserved exclusively for Lehi, it says , if it so be that they shall keep his
commandments.All Holy Books, such as Abraham or Book of Lehi are
sacred to the reader, they are kept within the laws and bounderies of faith to
benefit those of faith only.If you seek no faithful road toward your
Redeemer, it will be kept from you on purpose.
@Russell,You can't un teach what the church taught. It taught, and
is also backed up in previous versions of the BOM, that the Lamenites were the
principle ancestors of native American tribes. In addition, in Second Nephi Ch1
vs8-9 it says "8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be akept as
yet from the knowledge of other bnations; for behold, many nations would overrun
the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. 9
Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a apromise, that binasmuch as those whom the
Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments,
they shall cprosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all
other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be
that they shall dkeep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of
this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of
their einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever."How is
this not stating clearly that the land was preserved for Lehi, and that no one
else was there?
Someone once said:"It is easier to fool a man than to convince a
man he has been fooled."Many have been fooled to be sure, but
convincing them they have is fruitless. They have to see it themselves.
Cats, What am I supposed to think? You say that the Book of Abraham is not
a direct translation of the papyri that the church has in its possession. You
claim that the papyri were destroyed in the Great Chicago fire. I did a lot of
reading about that fire, but the church put out pictures of the papyri, and made
the claim that they were the ones that Joseph translated. They look exactly
like the pics that are represented in the Book of Abraham. It stands to reason
that these were indeed the papyri that Joseph claimed to translate. The problem
is that these are funerary texts from ancient Egypt and not from the hand of
Abraham. In fact they are way younger than Abraham. I am confused.
RedWings,I hope you are wrong.
>> I think it's a great opportunity for the Prophet and the church
to step forward with full transparency and confirm once and for all that the
church is true.The best way to stand up to hostile anti-Mormons is
simply to deny them the audience they seek. Don't argue with them.
Don't give them a public platform. Contention isn't the Lord's
way of preaching the gospel.
@RedWings "an extremist, atheistic judge in a small court in England"Actually No. Elizabeth Roscoe is not some two bit judge from the outer
boons. She is a very highly respected District Judge at Westminster Magistrates
Court in London. Not a "small court in England" BTW.She has
overseen a number of very high profile cases there, including police corruption
and those of the ringleaders of the London riots. She would not sign a summons
without a reasonable case with suitable evidence being presented.UK
Law: "The court must not ‘sign off on’ and issue a summons that
would amount to an abuse of the court’s process (R (Mayor of Newham) v
Stratford Magistrates’ Court  EWHC 2506 (Admin)) or is simply
vexatious."I've not found mention anywhere of District
Judge Elizabeth Roscoe's religious affiliation. Perhaps you know something
No, it's just ridiculous, and Thomas Monson is outside the jurisdiction of
a foreign court.Nowadays all bets are off; we see absurd and
unreasonable litigations all the time, here and perhaps it is starting up in
British courts too.If Britain is true to its traditions though
nothing will come of this: LDS missionary work has always been legal there.
One bishop sought to arrest some Mormon missionaries in the 1800's but he
could not get anyone to carry it out. A bill was brought in parliament to
outlaw proselyting by Mormon missionaries and it was overwhelmingly defeated.I am amazed that this was taken seriously. Perhaps the judge was just
weird; it happens.
I support Pres. Thomas S. Monson as a true prophet of God, as well as Joseph
Smith. Faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints pay
tithing not because Pres. Monson tells them to, but because it is a law of God.
In my 53 years as a member of the Church I have received the many blessings
promised by the Lord to those who comply with this sacred law.To the dissenters
we say: we love you and pray for you. Please set aside your grudges, repent and
come back to the fold of Christ while there is still time!
Interesting that they didn't mention Mr. Phillips is the managing editor of
mormonthink dot com, a prominent ex-mormon website describing many of the
historical and other issues he has included as part of the suit. There is other
interesting information about him personally and the extent of his prior
involvement with the church, as well. He was more than a former bishop and stake
There are specific tests for determining fraud. One is that it includes a
transaction, not a voluntary donation. Not only are religious beliefs protected
(making it basically state-sponsored religious persecution), but it also
doesn't meet the most simple of prima facie requirements. It might be that
the LDS church has good grounds for filing a civil lawsuit itself for harassment
and abuse of process.
If the crux of the summons is that Pres. Monson encourages the payment of
tithing to a church that he knows is false, I suggest that this can be proved or
disproved by a simple question: "Has Pres. Monson personally paid
tithing?" If he has paid tithing throughout his life, which I believe to be
the case, then obviously he believes the church is true. The fraud charge
We are living in CRAZY times.
Let's stop and think about this for a second. This is a serious misstep by
the British government, and serious missteps always present good opportunities.
I say turn into the skid. The English (not British) have great animus for
religion in general. I say Pres. Monson seriously consider showing up for the
hearing. Then use the British legal levers and best British representation to
show how religious bigotry is not only profoundly irrational, illogical, and
fallacious, but also abusive and oppressive. It's time that
knee-jerk religious bigotry had a mirror held up to itself in a legal forum, and
this is a great opportunity.
Well, I fully expect this Magistrate to next summon the Queen of England to her
court and answer the same kind of charges. After all, the Queen is the head of
the Church of England. Just think how much fun they'd have over there by
hauling the Queen in.
Recent studies in Y-Chromosomal DNA haplogroups are also of some interest. The
founding American Y-haplogroups (so far--Y-chromosomal decoding is at its
beginning phases) are Q, C, and R--specifically R-M173. Q appears East Asian,
as does C (though some suggest C MAY originate in Arabia, its migration at least
tends eastward). R-M173, however, is not found in East Asia (at all). It is
West Eurasian, most common to Europe, significant in the Central Asian steppes,
and also found in the Near East. Who brought it to America? Who knows? But
the old, tired theory, espoused by Phillips and others like him, that the
founding of the Americas came from some monolithic migratory wave from East Asia
is what modern genetic research falsifies. That research does not, however,
falsify the Book of Mormon.
Thanks to DN for providing links.Now I am searching the sources and
do agree it is a big help for me to gain additional insides. That people of all
kind of faith need explanations is clear, question remains, can they proceed to
have answers beyond that what someone has taught them ?That is the
teaching of this church, you may receive if you knock and willing to prepare
your heart for spiritual insides to the matter.As far as I know,
claims of the anti-BM or anti-BA are of thin margin since what comes first, a
testimony of God or some educated logic of the Mind ?If Lehi is
guilty of fraud, or Abraham of deception, then I am willing to think it over
again. But for what I know, there is more truth in what they said, then what you
read.The church is no fraud, since it is built on Christ, who is no
fraud.Christ did not tell me to be aware of the church of Jesus Christ but
of it's people.This is the testimony, after all we have heard,
that He lives !
What starts on the extremes becomes the norm. This case involves a bitter
ex-Mormon and an extremist, atheistic judge in a small court in England.
However, in another 15 - 20 years it could easily become common place for
religion to be hauled into court by atheists. The current trend in the world,
and the US, is moving toward the destruction of our most basic freedom - freedom
of religion.Disagreeing with someone does not negate their beliefs.
The left does not understand this, and they will become what they have always
feared - dogmatic tyrants.
Maybe we should put Phillips on the defensive.He claims DNA
disproves the Book of Mormon. It doesn't. His argument rests on faulty
assumptions (that, per Book of Mormon, Tribe Lehi is the unique founding group
for ALL indigenous Americans; in fact it teaches that a remnant of Tribe Lehi
would be found AMONG the indigenous Americans--significant difference) and
relies on outdated evidence (a common feature of anti-Mormon polemics). A basic primer: The founding mtDNA haplogroups in the Americas are ABCD
(all East Asian) and X--specifically X2, which originated in the Levant (the
Galilean Druze, a DNA refugium, have all the various strands of X2). The
American strand of X2 is almost uniformly X2a (with a little X2g), so the
population that introduced X2 likely started out small (larger groups have more
genetic diversity).So mtDNA evidence suggests that a small group of
people migrated to the Americas from the Near East at some point in time after
the founding of the various X2 strands. When after? We don't know.
Whether that small group of people was Tribe Lehi, we don't know. But the
evidence certainly doesn't "disprove" that belief either.
So many comments focusing on the church's truth claims. That's a
complete sideshow to the central issue.To prove fraud, the plaintiff
will have to show that President Monson obtained money from claims which he
personally believed to be false. Yeah, right. Good luck with that.
@ThinksIThink Someone's account that they did something and
writing it down does not make fact. I could no less claim "I invented cold
fusion. I wrote it down right here." and expect people to believe me.
Evaluate that statement against testable, repeatable methods of establishing
whether a translation is correct. Many people even before the Rosetta Stone
discovery could translate Egyptian characters so the language and its
translation is a known science. Smith's translations do not match the
Egyptian characters in Abraham at all. So, in short, it IS common knowledge
that was not translated from Egyptian as Smith claimed.
RE: Northern Lights, yes, here we go again.(Reed Smoot)After years
of hearings, the remaining charges of the opposition included:That church
leaders were still practicing(illegally) plural marriage. Apostles John W.
Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley were still performing plural marriages in Mexico
and Canada, though Taylor was later excommunicated for the practice.That the church was exerting too much influence on Utah politics.That
members were required to take oaths in the temples to seek revenge on the United
States. (See: oath of vengeance)
Religious freedom doesn't cover fraud. That is what the man is suing for:
"If we have the truth, it ought not to be harmed by investigation. If we
have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." J. Reuben Clark, a respected
apostle said this. All of the statements about like "these are the latter
days, persecution will mount against us" and "the church would never
lie" are ignoring the fact that this case is about a search for truth. The
plaintiff's argument states a list of truth claims made by the church for
which they can provide proof that they are correct. I think it's a great
opportunity for the Prophet and the church to step forward with full
transparency and confirm once and for all that the church is true. If they
cannot do that, then it would lead a reasonable person to conclude they have
something to hide. If they have something to hide, what is it? Why? What does
it serve? These are questions every member should grapple with. We should all
be capable of enough objectivity to not only be able to rationally point out the
tenets of other religions we believe illustrate their falsehood, but to
objectively examine those within our own church as well.
Sharrona, yes, here we go again.I don't believe that President
Joseph F. Smith has anything to do about judicial showmanship in Britain. Were I
a member of the British Government, I'd be just a tad embarrassed over this
judge's ruling. Not good for international relations.Second,
anyone who argues your particular point has probably stopped on page 483 of the
record of the Smooth hearings without proceeding on to page 484 where President
Smith stated that he has had "impressions of the spirit" upon his mind
"very frequently." To many LDS, that is a common form of revelation. I
don't expect he could have expanded on that thought given the hostile
nature of the hearing. In the meantime, I suggest we just leave the red
herrings to the whales.
I think that President Monson should go over and appear and stand up for what we
believe. This is what we teach our youth in lessons every single week. What a
great opportunity for him to be an incredible example of this. How wonderful
would it be for him to stand up and bear a strong testimony and use his
knowledge of all the issues listed in the summons to destroy their claims
regarding the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon DNA and so on? I hope he appears
and is an example for every member of the church.
No one is forced to pay tithing, but as stated in the scriptures, it is a
commandment to do so. Attacking a religious leader for believing in the
scriptures is truly bizarre!
Well, I suppose if you don't believe in a particular church then either you
must believe their leaders are wrong, or that they're liars. From that
perspective, it sorta does look similar to fraud in some sense. That said,
religions have been rather immune from these sort of charges so nothing should
come of this other than a dismissal.
I know President Monson's appearing in court would set an undesirable, and
maybe even dangerous, legal precedent, but I keep thinking of President
Hinckley's television interview with Mike Wallace. I for one would love to
see President Monson or his hand-picked emissaries,like Elders Oaks and Holland,
take the witness stand and having the opportunity to explain the Plan of
Happiness to the British court. This entire episode reminds me of Satan's
not knowing the mind of God when Satan offered Eve the forbidden fruit. It will
be interesting to see how this plays out, but from an LDS standpoint, looks like
a win-win to me!
Those who believe this is minor legal harassment have not read the stature that
this case is based up. London has very different fraud laws. They do not
protect religion as the U.S. I think this may be more than a minor problem for
I think he ought to show up! It would be a great missionary opportunity.
I've read several articles about this, and DN was the only to omit the
actual charges, and the name of the person filing them.
to CatsCurious; What about the Gnostic texts found @ Nag Hammadi?
It doesn't look like the Great Britain is going to fullfil any prophecy of
yet.Folks can go back to bussiness as usual, the signs of
persecutions are showing first symptoms, but let us not get fanatical here. The fear mongering is just starting. I don't think we should
listen.Those who are smart enough to gain knowledge, welcome to the Last
Days,and those who want to think the fight as just started...remember
peace is going to prevail and it does not cost much unless we give up.
@redcorvette - Oh ... I don't know. What did Jesus have to fear standing
before the court of his time?@Ernest T Bass - I'd always
assumed that you confined your mocking hatred to sports topics. Good to know
that it knows no bounds.
re Vladhagen YesterdayThey'd circle the wagons and whine that
*religion is under attack*
RE: 1.96 Standard Deviations; Here we go again,President Joseph F.
Smith In 1904 was questioned in the senate for Mormon senator Reed Smoot. He
was questioned the three days. He admitted as a prophet, He had not received
any revelations. President Smith also admitted to the violation of
federal laws in the practice of polygamy by Church leaders, years after the
Manifestos on Polygamy stopped it. since he had eleven children by five wives
Red Corvette and Origami:It is not about whether President Monson is
"innocent." On a charge of teaching false doctrines, that is not
germane. Courts have no right to decide what is true or false doctrine. Even
in the often mentioned polygamy trials it was not doctrine, but actions, that
were prosecuted. Collecting voluntary donations for a church is not within the
jurisdiction of civil law. (if you want to discuss the claim of
"false doctrine" three witnesses [plus eight more actually] testified on
behalf of the Book of Mormon. One of them actually had to testify in court (in
the 19th century) and swore under oath that though he was no longer a supporter
of the Church he could not deny the truthfulness of his testimony that the Book
of Mormon was divinely revealed. )
I don't believe the court, nor the magistrates intentions are honorable.
Therefore, whenever there are two gathered in the Lords Name, there he is also.
However, the opposite it also true whenever there are gathered against me, there
he is not. The prophet will ultimately do whatever the Lord tells him that he
should do, and must sustain him, even defend him with our very own lives. This
is what it means to serve God, Serve with all you have to defend the faith. Now,
I know this is what is required, but the time till come soon when we will have
to do just that defend. In the sacred name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
Dear ThinksIThink:Please refer to my earlier post. The Book of
Abraham is NOT based on the Egyptian papyri fragments discovered some years ago.
It was taken from a much larger roll of papyri that was later destroyed in the
Chicago fire. This is an historic fact. the biggest mistake people make is to
believe the false notion that the Book of Abraham was taken from those
fragments. A lot of people have lost their testimonies over this false notion
and it is based on a lie that is perpetrated by those who lie in wait to
deceive. This is one of the biggest hoaxes of many that are used on anti-Mormon
websites to try and draw people away from the Church. Please don't be
fooled by it. The Book of Abraham is true.
President Monson will be fine. I feel sad for those who leave The Church, but
can't leave The Church alone.
Oragami:I guess I stand corrected. Your post motivated me to
research what the experts say about the Egyptian papyri and the Book of Abraham.
From what I've read they say it is not a literal translation. I did find
some Church information suggesting maybe it was an inspired translation. I
guess I have to digest this as its not what I was taught.
BCA - Yes he is. He's not excommunicated yet (that I'm aware of) but
he is definitely an ex-mormon in that he doesn't believe and doesn't
largely affiliate with the church (summoning monson to court definitely
doesn't count). As it is, his case points are made heavily by
taking only one possible way of describing faith beliefs, places these as
certifiable facts to the LDS faith. Then takes only one perspective against
these claims as certifiable facts as well. Then presents this as
reality.....except that it's not. Reality is is there's multiple views
and perspectives on just about every point he makes. His weakest, IMO are the
ones that talk about the 6k yrs. There's no official stance about the age
of mankind. People have consistently have different views about it. This won't go well for him. Although I'm sure he'll spin it
somehow to his favor.
Michael.jensen 369 you make excellent points and I agree with you. And, yes,
everyone, it is President Monson, not Monson. Additionally, no one
"forces" anyone to do anything who are members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. One of the most basic doctrines of our religion is
that of agency--the God-given right for us to choose for ourselves in all of our
daily decisions. Members of our church are autonomous individuals who make
conscious choices based on what we want to do with regard to payment of tithes
and offerings, serving in church callings, observing the Word of Wisdom, having
family home evenings, praying, scripture study, dressing modestly, temple
attendance and on and on. Every choice we make in life carries with it
consequences--good or bad as the case may be. No one is "forced" to pay
tithing. We all have a choice; therefore, no fraud was committed and there is no
And the drip picks up it's pace. Just finished reading the Book of
Revelations a few days ago. No suprise here, the persecution is expected on the
Saints in the last days. The persecution will get stronger in the coming years.
Build your testimonies on concrete blocks!!
What a positively ridiculous thing to have happen for any world leader of any
religion. I bet they wouldn't do this to the Pope or any other leader of a
religious organization! A waste of taxpayers time, money and talent.
So, why did it take this paper two days to report this news? I agree it is a
bizarre episode. President Monson should never appear. I'm sure top level
lawyers in England will be working to suppress this, rightfully so. Funny thing
is, any religion could be subject to such an attack.
Thankyou Cats for the actual history on the subject of the book of Abraham. The
book of Abraham was contained on a 40' papyri scroll that existance was
confirmed by numerous witnesses including the prophets own nephew.It is also
historical fact that Joseph Smith's family sold them with the preserved
egyptian mummies to a museum in chicago which later was destroyed by fire.
Anti-Mormons always try to lump the other surviving scrolls and similair
existing ones in to disprove the book of Abraham regardless that the record in
question was DESTROYED. For an explanation on the other papyri I suggest people
check out Hugh Nibleys work on the Joseph Smith Papyri it is really insightfull
and shows that even the ancient egyptians had preserved some elements in the
gospel and grafted them into their own pagan theology.
It never seems to amaze me how the Judicial system on either side of the pond will stoop to new lows in persecution of church dogma. I guess the British
court leaders have noting better to do than waste their time on this.
The article states, "District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe summoned President
Monson [...] to answer allegations by a former church member that the faith
teaches false doctrines for the purpose of securing financial contributions from
members of the church."Oh great, an ex-bishop & ex-stake
president turned Korihor (SL Trib had more detail on the former member). These
allegations are just like what Korihor accused Alma and the priests of in Alma
30:27,31:"27 And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish
traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them
down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of
their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not
enjoy their rights and privileges.31 And he [Korihor] did rise up in
great swelling words before Alma, and did revile against the priests and
teachers, accusing them of leading away the people after the silly traditions of
their fathers, for the sake of glutting on the labors of the people."I love the Book of Mormon! It lets us know these kind of evil tactics
are just being repeated again in our day!
As with most of the snide comments on this board, and you know who you are, this
is an incredibly stupid court case with no basis in fact. If some ex-Mormon got
disgruntled, oh shucks. Tithing is how the Lord funds his church. You
don't pay, so what? You don't go to the temple. I could see if the
church acted like some of these TV preachers, soliciting funds that lots of
times goes into the preachers pocket. But we dont. Every year I go to the
Bishop and make accounting. That is between me and him. So I'm not losing
any sleep over it.It would be fun to see President Monson in court
shredding this magistrate into (figuratively) little tiny pieces. He'd be
very nice while doing it, but he'd do it. That won't ever happem.I see this magistrate losing his job.I too have been a
finance clerk in my ward. I can guarantee that the funds donated to the church
are very well accounted for.
So many non-believers... so few believers! Always interesting to read the
reasons that some use to "prove" their points. But then it is a free
world (in some places) and they are entitled to their opinions. How about
summoning the Pope to explain "his" beliefs! Pretty bizarre, huh?
There is no one in the Church that forces anyone to pay tithing. However it is
a commandment to pay 10% of your income to tithing. Total free agency in
compliance, just like any of the 10 Commandments. The church does have many
buildings they consider extremely holy and want to keep it holy by allowing
members that are following commandments to enter. Those buildings are Temples,
the Holy of Holy's. The worship buildings, or their churches, are open to
anyone who wants to enter. So this mans suit is totally baseless. If you want
to give you give, if not you don't. No repercussions except being able to
enter the holiest of places on earth. You can't blame the religion for
wanting to keep those buildings holy and pure.
Oragami:The papyri you refer to are not the ones that the Book of Abraham
came from. When Joseph Smith acquired the Egyptian artifacts, there were a
large scroll, a small scroll and a group of fragments of papyri. The Book of
Abraham came from the small scroll. The papyri that you refer to are the
fragments. We currently do not know where the large and small scrolls are.
Last known, they were in the possetion of Lucy Mack Smith in Nauvoo. After her
death, we don't know where they went. The fragments were in the possetion
of Emma Smith and from there ended up in the possetion of the Chicago museums
which turned them over to the LDS Church. You are right, though, that the
Church did verify that they contain funerary writings amont other things. Also,
there is no claim that the writings were written by Abraham's hand; the
small scroll was a copy of the Book of Abraham held in a private library of a
noble of ancient Egypt - that is, it wasn't the actual handwriting of
Abraham, just a copy of what Abraham wrote.
Oragami:One of the biggest mistakes that people make is to state
that the Book of Abraham is taken from the papyri that turned up in the museum
in New York. It is not. This is misinformation or disinformation that has,
unfortunately, hurt the testimony of many people. The Book of Abraham was taken
from a much larger papyri (at least 40 feet long)that was burned in the Chicago
fire in the nineteenth century. That is a fact as attested to by many of
witnesses. However, new discoveries about Egyptian writing, which
are happening almost weekly, are now verifying the accuracy of the facsimiles
and Joseph Smith's translation of them. It's really
important to be accurate and keep up on the latest information before making
My guess : A smart move by the church, as always, will smooth the poison and
then missionary work goes forward better than ever. The scream at the rising
church is a necessary of our time, the church will get stronger as Christ did
during his ministry.I imagine the Pope and Prophet walking along on
the aisle of common Good in front of TV and a surprised atheist world.
I can see a time coming very soon in Europe where Church's must open their
books to the public. The majority of Europe does not go to church with the
exception of muslims. Most of England's churches sit empty. Do not be
surprised if they enact laws that reflect that view.
I don't know how British law operates, but in my thinking the flip side of
the government's push of religion from the public square to avoid picking
sides in sectarian entanglements requires it to leave faith claims alone. And
from a practical standpoint, I don't see how to prove the intent element of
fraud when it comes to the list of religious claims or interpretations cited.
This is clearly a stunt from a group that thrives off of creating negative
publicity against Mormonism (indeed, I find fraudulent the claims of its own
website to "neutrality" in offering only "facts" and not spin
about the LDS church).
Tom Phillips is not an ex-Mormon.
While there is nothing to "hide," there is no way any church official --
or anybody else -- should legitimize this outrage in any way. This is about
precedent; and we don't need to threaten basic freedoms by setting
precedents of setting them aside because "there is nothing to hide."What SHOULD happen is, at minimum, the magistrate who issued this be
publicly censured, disbarred, and unbenched. On both sides of the Atlantic, the
"Black Robes" who preside in our courts have too much power. By
reinterpreting the word "interpret," they can interpret anything they
want -- can call light darkness and good evil -- and do anything they want.
@MormonmeukYou said - "If the Church has not been deliberately
misrepresenting facts "to make a gain for himself or another" it could
be the perfect opportunity for the Prophet to stand out and show the World that
the Everlasting Truths of the L.D.S. Gospel are really true."You
know what? That might very well happen, in which case those who brought forward
this case might get what they weren't expecting. And if this case ends up
turning in one way or the other favorably towards President Monson and the LDS
Church, then those who brought forth this case will truly not get what they
I will be interested to see how this case proceeds. Based about the
comments Thomas Phillip's has made in other news articles, he talks as
though he has already won the case and that in a month from now, the LDS Church
will implode.But Mr. Phillip's better not be so sure of
himself. Assuming this case actually goes to court, there are what I feel to be
reasonable arguments to be made in defense of LDS teachings and beliefs which
Mr. Phillip's claims are fraudulent. Unlike the anonymous world of the
Internet, one can not go into a court of law and attack a group of people then
refuse to listen to the other side. Each side must be given the opportunity to
present their case. And while we're on the subject of fraud,
when will many of those who have made lots of money writing books and producing
videos which have twisted and distorted LDS teachings come forward and admit
President Monson is one of the most honest men that live on the face of this
earth at this time! Trust me this man would not still or thief from any one! He
has no need to! He loves his Heavenly Father and would do nothing to offend Him!
The lucer of this world is only temporal and has no importance and he knows
this! So if you think he wants to still from any one you better do you're
research just a little better if you think that he would do something like that!
Tithing goes to pay for building of temples, church buildings, and other things
not to someones pocket! If you think that it goes to someones pocket you better
look a little harder!
@Serenity - Tom Philips has not been excommunicated. He is a current, though
inactive member. He no longer believes in the church teachings because no one
inside the church could answer his questions. When he told his family that he no
longer believed, he was shunned by his wife and kids. He has been disowned and
is divorced. From what I understand, he is a good man who feels the church is
doing harm to people and families.
Nothing to see here people. There are no problems with the Book of Mormon or
Book of Abraham. They are both perfectly true. Just read about them on Wikipedia
if you're curious.
I serve as the financial clerk in my ward, so I deal with all of the ward's
expenses and income every week. I'll tell you this, to tamper with Church
funds, as far as I know, is the quickest way to get excommunicated. The
bi-annual audits, the having two brethren take the money to the deposit box, the
paperwork and digital records, says that accountability is taken very seriously,
when it comes to donations from members. So that's first. Second, no one
here, or in the article has ever actually examined the character of President
Monson in their insinuations. You find out the character of a man by talking to
his friends, not to his enemies. President Monson is widely respected among
every faith group and religious organization in the Salt Lake City area. Read
about his life, listen to him speak, study what the common themes among his
messages are. This is a man who is trying he best to serve God and his fellow
man. Read what his colleagues in the Quorum of the Twelve have to say about him.
And finally, it's President Monson. Not Monson. President Monson.
@oragamiFrom the FAIRmormon website: "So let’s start with
the relationship of the Book of Abraham to the Joseph Smith Papyri. There are
three different points of view here. One, that Joseph Smith translated the Book
of Abraham from the papyri that we have. Almost no one really believes this. But
to hear the critics tell it this is the official position of the church.
It’s not. Nor do most members of the church subscribe to this so far as I
can tell. So, it’s a strawman. The second one is that Joseph Smith
translated the Book of Abraham from papyri that we do not currently have and
this is the position that most accords with the historical evidence. And the
third one is that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham strictly by
revelation and it did not come from the papyri at all. This position seems to be
popular among Latter-day Saints but seems to have no historical evidence to
@oragami,Respectfully, I'm pretty sure if experts had
determined that the Book of Abraham was not translated from the Egyptian papyri
it would be common knowledge. Further, if you read the introduction
to the Book of Abraham it says right there that it is "A 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."That seems quite clear to
There are no inconsistencies, everything is 100% true and remember to pay
tithing before paying bills. You'll be totally blessed.
D and C 24:17 And whosoever shall go to law with thee shall be cursed by the
law.Joseph Smith was sued all the time by people trying to make a point
about their hatred for JsJr. I wonder what would happen if President Monson went
and defended his case with some attorneys from the firm of Oaks, Cook, and
@ThinksithinkThe church teaches that the Book of Abraham is a
literal translation of some ancient papyri that were written by the hand of
Abraham. These papyri have been examined by both LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists
and both groups have indicated clearly that the scrolls are funerary texts that
have nothing to do with Abraham or anything mentioned in LDS scripture and thus
the Book of Abraham cannot have been translated from the papyri as Joseph Smith
and the chruch claims.
It's probably true that the British Court sees President Monson and the
church defrauding the public - as presented by an excommunicated, disgruntled
ex-Mormon. His views, as much as they have no validity with the Mormon Church
or the LDS general populace, may have some validity in the eyes of a British
Magistrate who has no knowledge of the Gospel. Perhaps they have no knowledge
of the Bible where tithing is a requirement and not paying it is said to be
robbing God. Tithing money is not spent on any personal gains for President
Monson or any one person. It is sacred money and is considered as such, used to
build up the Kingdom of God and spreading the Gospel. No one person makes any
money with sacred tithing offerings as they belong to God. So why don't
the Brits issue a summons to bring God to court? They might as well.
@FTActually, the Church and Monson, if they are committing fraud,
are hurting people on a daily basis. Don't you think so?
I don't think this is a religious freedom issue. No one is challenging the
right of any believer to make claims that can not be verified objectively (those
based purely on faith). What is being challenged are claims of a factual nature.
Claims that are presented as fact can be falsified, the the plaintiff claims
they have been. The plaintiff claims that Monson knows this, or should have
known, and yet continued to make these claims in the pursuit of money. It is a very unusual case (use "bizarre" if you prefer), but it is not
an attack on religious freedom.
One allegation is that the Church teaches the Book of Abraham is a literal
translation of some Egyptian papyri. Why is this misrepresenting a fact?
Isn't this just a religious belief?
Leave the church and President Monson alone. They're not hurting anyone.
If the Church has not been deliberately misrepresenting facts "to make a
gain for himself or another" it could be the perfect opportunity for the
Prophet to stand out and show the World that the Everlasting Truths of the
L.D.S. Gospel are really true.I've no idea how it works in the
USA, but English Judges don't tend to issue International summons's
without a solid case and at least some convincing evidence. The lines between
Religious protections are also not quite so clear cut here. The Church of
Scientology was successfully sued in France quite recently.
Red CorvetteWho said Monson fears anything?
Seems like the axe grinders can't ever get their axe's sharp enough,
they just keep on grinding.
This is not Satan. Satan cannot issue a summons. Satan can't do anything.
He does not have a body or power over anything.
The time that Christ's church is doing the most good in the world is the
time Satan works the hardest to attack us. He must be desperate if he's
resorting to such absurd measures.
Summons states that LDS Corp (Headed by Thomas Monson) knowingly uses false
statements to entice its members into paying tithing. This is the reason it is
listed as Fraud. The tithing issue differs from other religions because the LDS
church uses tithing as a determining factor in one's worthiness, and
withholds blessings like a Temple Recommend to those who are not full tithe
Who cares, it's stupid, doesn't need any more attention than it
From a legal perspective, proving fraud requires establishing that the
individuals making the material statements in question know them to be false.
The simple problem with bringing allegations of fraud against religious leaders
is that they believe the statements they have made to be true, and all their
behavior supports that.A separate problem is that there needs to be
a direct connection between the statements made and the loss to the alleged
victim(s). The donation of tithing or other church offerings is not for any
purpose connected to the statements made; that is, the donation of the tithing
was not for the purpose of translating the Book of Mormon, so the reality of the
plates or the accuracy of the translation is not material to the donation of
tithing.The tithing statement clearly states that "the Church
provides no goods or services in consideration, in whole or in part, for the
contribution detailed below; but only intangible religious benefits." I
would be interested in hearing the legal argument establishing that the
religious benefits in question have not been received.
What are the specifics of the summons?