Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Derek

Is Christianity on Trial

Is Christianity on trial? Does this set a presidence to all religions who believe in a literal Adam and Eve, or is this a mockery of Britians judicial system when a disgruntled ex-member, with money in his pocket, is allowed to incur unnecessary costs, to both the British public and the individual who they accused, by using a rarely used law to summons him, an 87 year old frail man, to appear before a Magestrates court to answer why they are telling their congregation that Adam and Eve were real people who lived in the garden of Eden, thus committing fraud. There are eight charges, that are all just as ridiculous, but sanctioned by a British judge. Does this open the gateway for all religions who claim that Jesus is the Christ to be prosecuted for fraud. Will Muslim leaders be summoned to court for making up the character called Mohamed. Can anyone here justify this farse or is this a sign of the times?



Head of Mormon church Thomas Monson summoned by British magistrates' court over Adam and Eve teaching

Thomas S Monson, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ordered to appear before British magistrates' court amid claims that the organisation's teaching amounts to 'fraud'

Thomas S Monson is the worldwide leader of the Mormon church Photo: 2009 Getty Images

By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor

2:26PM GMT 05 Feb 2014

A British magistrate has issued an extraordinary summons to the worldwide leader of the Mormon church alleging that its teachings about mankind amount to fraud.

Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been ordered to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London next month to defend the church’s doctrines including beliefs about Adam and Eve and Native Americans.

A formal summons signed by District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe warns Mr Monson, who is recognised by Mormons as God’s prophet on Earth, that a warrant for his arrest could be issued if he fails to make the journey from Salt Lake City, Utah, for a hearing on March 14.

In one of the most unusual documents ever issued by a British court, it lists seven teachings of the church, including that Native Americans are descended from a family of ancient Israelites as possible evidence of fraud.

It also cites the belief that the Book of Mormon was translated from ancient gold plates revealed to the church’s founder Joseph Smith by angels and that Adam and Eve lived around 6,000 years ago.

The document suggests that asking members of the church to make contributions while promoting theological doctrines which “might be untrue or misleading” could be a breach of the Fraud Act 2006.

The Church dismissed the summons as containing “bizarre allegations” and signalled that Mr Monson has no plans to attend.

It was issued in response to a private prosecution attempt by Tom Phillips, a disaffected former Mormon who now runs MormonThink a website highly critical of the church.

Under little-used legal procedures, people who say they have evidence that someone has committed a crime can ask a magistrate to issue a summons requiring them to attend a court hearing.

The district judge would then decide whether or not to proceed with a case or dismiss it.

Similar procedures were used by Palestinian activist in 2009 to have an arrest warrant issued against the Israeli justice minister Tzipi Livni, leading to an international diplomatic incident.

Two virtually identical summonses were sent to Mr Monson naming Stephen Bloor, a former Mormon bishop, and Christopher Denis Ralph, another former convert, as victims of the alleged fraud.

It argues that by being persuaded to pay a tithe to the church on the basis of teachings which might not be true, the president could have committed fraud.

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.”

The document then demands that Mr Monson appears in court number six at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Marylebone Road at 10am on March 14 or face arrest.

Malcolm Adcock, the church’s public affairs director for Europe, said: “The Church occasionally receives documents like this that seek to draw attention to an individual’s personal grievance or embarrass church leaders.

“These bizarre allegations fit into that category.”

But Mr Phillips said: “The head of the Mormon Church has been summoned to a court to answer allegations of fraud – I don’t think a judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court would sign off on ‘bizarre allegations’ – I certainly hope they never would.

“This has been a very serious matter that has been looked at in extreme detail.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/r...t-over-Adam-and-Eve-teaching.html
Jim

As far as I'm led to understand (after listening to the SUNDAY programme on BBC R4 this morning, the main gripe was allegde fraudulent use of an ancient Egyptian Papyrus claiming it as the "Book of Abraham"
I think this is a waste of taxpayers money, since the fraud responsible for decieving the gullable and lying over the translation of the said document snuffed it yonks ago.

Whether the so-called 'prophet' summoned to appear in a court of law is a "Christian" in any accepted sense of the word is also moot.
Therefore the question raised in the title of the thread is not worth answering in this case.
Quizzimodo

Ralph: The case seems pointless to me but I must challenge you on one point:

Quote:
by using a rarely used law to summons him, an 87 year old frail man, to appear before a Magestrates court


If he is that frail maybe he shouldn't have such an important role in this organisation
Derek

Quizzimodo wrote:
Ralph: The case seems pointless to me but I must challenge you on one point:

Quote:
by using a rarely used law to summons him, an 87 year old frail man, to appear before a Magestrates court


If he is that frail maybe he shouldn't have such an important role in this organisation


If you look to the scripture you will see that none of the prophets of old were released from their calling until death. So it is with the Mormons. Their prophets can only be released at death. He has two councillors who are there to assist him and 12 apostle who take on various rolls to assist him, however, the summons is for President Thomas S Monson to appear. They cannot do that for him.
Derek

Jim wrote:
As far as I'm led to understand (after listening to the SUNDAY programme on BBC R4 this morning, the main gripe was allegde fraudulent use of an ancient Egyptian Papyrus claiming it as the "Book of Abraham"
I think this is a waste of taxpayers money, since the fraud responsible for decieving the gullable and lying over the translation of the said document snuffed it yonks ago.

Whether the so-called 'prophet' summoned to appear in a court of law is a "Christian" in any accepted sense of the word is also moot.
Therefore the question raised in the title of the thread is not worth answering in this case.


Oh, I had no doubt that that would be one of the charges. But it is one of them. The Judge has summons him on eight charges, I believe. The main charge, according to the Times, is the fraudulent teaching of Adam and Eve. That, on its own, opens the gateway to a whole hoard of prosecutions that, if successful, could irreparably damage all churches that believe in an Adam and Eve.
Ketty

http://www.christianpost.com/

The summons stems from legal action initiated by Tom Phillips, an ex-Mormon who now runs MormonThink, a website which is very critical of the church. It charges that because the church's teachings "might be untrue or misleading," it could be a violation of that country's Fraud Act 2006.

The formal summons was signed by District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe, not a Magistrate.

Well, if it highlights the lies that the LDS organisation perpetuates, then it will be no bad thing.  

So the answer to the OP 'is Christianity on trial?'  is: LDS propaganda is not Christianity.  See For Ralph for more details.
Jim

S' wot I said, innit?
Is christianity on trial?
NO.
Is the pseudo-Christian sect of Mormonisim on trial?
Probably not, as I doubt it'll get that far.

SHOULD the pseudo-Christian cult of Mormonism be on trial for perpetuating a decietful fraud in the U.S?
Yep...but their daft constitution, sadly, won't allow it.
Derek

Ketty wrote:
http://www.christianpost.com/

The summons stems from legal action initiated by Tom Phillips, an ex-Mormon who now runs MormonThink, a website which is very critical of the church. It charges that because the church's teachings "might be untrue or misleading," it could be a violation of that country's Fraud Act 2006.

The formal summons was signed by District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe, not a Magistrate.

Well, if it highlights the lies that the LDS organisation perpetuates, then it will be no bad thing.  

So the answer to the OP 'is Christianity on trial?'  is: LDS propaganda is not Christianity.  See For Ralph for more details.


Surely the Christian forum should be a place for reasoned debate not a place to condemn other people's beliefs or make false and erroneous statements in order to gain the moral high ground. This debate is all about the continuation of Christianity as a whole and not an opportunity to have another dig at someone else's beliefs whilst your own stands in such disarray, that is, false doctrines. It is to highlight that man has the power to demolish all religions and not an opportunity to argue whether Mormons are Christian or not. They think they are, which is sufficient for them. It is only bornos who like to contend over that point. So, is it a sign of the times that the power of law has the ability of removing freedom of choice to worship the God of their choice? Anything else should be left for the bear pit.

It seems that a Magistrate initialized the ”action and a judge sanctioned it. But once again, nit picking is used to distract healthy debate by derailing it.  A good ploy to derail but irrelevant to the OP.”
gone

Why does Ralphie defend the nasty Mormon sect when he claims he isn't a Mormon?
Shaker

Probably for the same reason that he's perfectly happy to quote Mormon literature when it agrees with his prejudices (on, let's say, homosexuality) without being a Mormon himself - the enemy of my enemy is my friend, sort of thing.
Derek

Jim wrote:
S' wot I said, innit?
Is christianity on trial?
NO.
Is the pseudo-Christian sect of Mormonisim on trial?
Probably not, as I doubt it'll get that far.

SHOULD the pseudo-Christian cult of Mormonism be on trial for perpetuating a decietful fraud in the U.S?
Yep...but their daft constitution, sadly, won't allow it.


Aha, Ketty has turned up and Jim has resorted back to his usual insulting self.

I said that this has the potential of harming all religious institutions as it brings into question the authenticity of Adam and Eve. Most, if not all, religions believe in a original progenitors so all religions are effected with this action. As far as I know, only bornos believe that Mormons are not Christian and only bornos criticize other people's religions so it is they who practice and adopt false teachings and use it to condemn other religions. All start by the adulterer and fraud Billy Graham.

My concern was not that the Mormon faith is on trial but that the whole of Christianity is on trail, including my own beliefs. But I saw what you did there. You called it a pseudo Christian sect because you know that I do not believe that so by saying it you intended to wind me up and offend me. Now that behaviour tells me that you are not a Christian as a Christian would not want to do that.

What Mormons believe in or what you think the perpetuate is irrelevant to this discussion. I an discussing whether all religions are at risk from this action. I am not calling the false doctrine of the Trinity or God incarnate to wind you up with, as true as it is, yet you do not want to debate this as much as you want to contend.But I saw what you did there. You called it a cult, however it is either a cult or a sect it cannot be both, as you have said. Because you know that I do not believe that so by saying it you intended to wind me up and offend me. Now that behaviour tells me that you are not a Christian as a Christian would not want to do that.

So you also disagree with a constitution that has made them the biggest democracy in the world and call it stupid. Thank goodness you have no say in it. Lord knows what kind of anarchy we would be living in if good men were replace by someone like you who tries to dictate which religion we should all belong to as your congregation within a congregation, or should I say the faith that infiltrated many faiths to steer them away from the Lamb of God by causing them to contend one with another. Contention, the greatest tool of Satan that is wielded so readily by those who are in his control, even though they do not know it.

Please try and stick to the topic instead of trying to air your petty grievances with other religions who have a right to exist. If you are not a part of the solution  then you are a part of the problem. Which are you?
Derek

Floo wrote:
Why does Ralphie defend the nasty Mormon sect when he claims he isn't a Mormon?


This is not the bear pit. The topic is about Christianity and recent happening that may effect it. It is not about me or who I defend.
,
  Play the NOT the
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Probably for the same reason that he's perfectly happy to quote Mormon literature when it agrees with his prejudices (on, let's say, homosexuality) without being a Mormon himself - the enemy of my enemy is my friend, sort of thing.


Play the NOT the

Even a man on death row having committed a heinous crime can be profound. It matters not from whose mouth it is spoken but whether it was whispered by god. But hey, this is about the events of this resent revelation, not about me, as much as you would like it to be.

So profound it is worth posting again.

Quote:
As we face this and other issues of our time, we encourage all to bear in mind our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27–28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well-being of society. Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and crucial to eternal salvation.

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it. The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

While these matters will continue to evolve, we affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree.

As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them. We invite you to pray that people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths of the gospel, and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future.
Shaker

It was shite the first time, Delly.
Jim

The thread title is
"Is Christianity on trial".

    The question as to whether the sect known as Mormonism is Christianity as generally accepted by Christians has not been answered.

Is Mormonism on trial?
    Well, since the crime originally occurred in the U.S.A., then I'd say that the only crime the Mormon sect in this country is guilty of  is publishing or perpetuating fraudulent material, namely, the clearly fraudulent Book of Abraham.

     Since, regrettably, it is impossible to dig up the trickster who perpetuated the fraud, even going to the extent of inventing an Egyptian grammar which proves about as accurate as Romulan, I very much doubt whether prosecuting the sect would succeed.

Unfortunately.
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:
The topic is about Christianity and recent happening that may effect it.


No it's not, it's about the LDS.
Derek

Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The topic is about Christianity and recent happening that may effect it.


No it's not, it's about the LDS.


No, The topic is about Christianity and recent happening that may effect it. If you think otherwise then you are wrong. If you want to talk about Mormons, which is always a good thing's to discuss, then start your own thread. I like the Mormons, beings as my wife is one, so I would no doubt contribute to it, but you are in the wrong place here. Your post belongs with you in the bear pit.
Jim

Nope.
Ketty's spot on.
Since the alleged fraud concerns literature which is not part of any Christian Scriptures, then the case is not about Christianity.
Derek

[quote="Jim:107252"]

Quote:
The thread title is
"Is Christianity on trial".


Correct

Quote:
    The question as to whether the sect known as Mormonism is Christianity as generally accepted by Christians has not been answered.


As those who believe that Mormonism is a sect, and not a Christians faith, is in the minority, it would be fair to call them Christians. For yourself this question is irrelevant as the faith, within a faith, that you belong to is not considered to be a Christian faith as much as it is a movement piggybacking on other faiths, a bit like the cuckoo who steals the nests of other birds or the camel that eventually gains access to the tent in the storm by gradually taking possession of it. Predatory and wicked. I really do not think that this discussion is for you. It is for real Christians who love their fellow man and avoid the vile option of contention the eliminates from the father of contention, even the Son of the Morning, Lucifer.

Quote:
Is Mormonism on trial?
    Well, since the crime originally occurred in the U.S.A., then I'd say that the only crime the Mormon sect in this country is guilty of  is publishing or perpetuating fraudulent material, namely, the clearly fraudulent Book of Abraham.


Well, I am not sure exactly where the Garden of Eden was, but I do not think it was in the USA.

The problem with people who have secular knowledge is that they think their knowledge is on a par with God. They cannot conceive that God can do anything that cannot be conceived in their own minds because the have qualifications in it. You believe that because the Book of Abraham was translated from funeral papyrus that anything else is a fraud. You claim to know the mind and will of God yet believe in the Trinity. You think that it is inconceivable for God to inspire the mind of Joseph Smith to write the words that the Father wants written regardless as to the medium in originates from. My God does not have the restrictions that you place on your God. My God is omniscient and omnipotent. He can do anything that can be done and if one of those things are to bring forth the Book of Abraham then it is a minor miracle when compare to the Flood. Because of your lack of faith in the God you claim to believe in you have accused him of fraud. You have accused him with an inability to perform miracle because of your secular dogma that determines what God can and cannot do. To your mind it is a fraud to the beliefs of Mormons it is a miracle that God still performs. How can you serve a master that you do not know?

     Since, regrettably, it is impossible to dig up the trickster who perpetuated the fraud, even going to the extent of inventing an Egyptian grammar which proves about as accurate as Romulan, I very much doubt whether prosecuting the sect would succeed.

And there it is. Mans knowledge is superior to God's knowledge. That is sacrilege. It seems impossible to you that God would re-establish his Church here on earth in the latter days. That he would call Prophets and apostles to administer his will on earth. That all the miracles that have taken place in that faith are real and true. You put constraints on my God and the God of Mormons because of you proclaimed knowledge gained from man. You do not know the true and everlasting God who love every single one of us equally and without conditions.

But, this is not about Mormons, although the two bornos her are trying to twist it to that. This is about a Christian faith being held accountable for its belief in God by a disgruntled member who was unable to live a Mormon existence. I couldn't either but I am not bitching about it either. You need to wise up Jim, remove the constraints from your God, and realise who he is and what he is capable of. He will not do it for you. You must realise that his knowledge and abilities makes us look as little children.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
As those who believe that Mormonism is a sect, and not a Christians faith, is in the minority

Evidence needed for this assertion.

Quote:
But, this is not about Mormons

The OP says otherwise.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Nope.
Ketty's spot on.
Since the alleged fraud concerns literature which is not part of any Christian Scriptures, then the case is not about Christianity.


Your fraud is a miracle to Mormons. Your trinity and God incarnate is a fraud to Mormons. Both claim the position of being Christian but by your own logic none of them are. I have never, ever seen a Mormon act as arrogant and condescending as you and Ketty. I have never seen them act with such carelessness with people's beliefs as your are. I have never seen a Mormon that is as judgemental of others as you are. I have never come across a Mormon who thinks he knows more then God himself, as you do calling his miracle fraudulent, as you do. If your religion is true then I am going back to the Mormons.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
As those who believe that Mormonism is a sect, and not a Christians faith, is in the minority

Evidence needed for this assertion.

Quote:
But, this is not about Mormons

The OP says otherwise.


If the thread were about Mormonism I would be happy to oblige. It is not. It is about recent action that could effect all of Christianity. Jim is trying to turn it into a Mormon thread but I am not going to let him. I will close the thread first.

The original point says that Christianity is under threat by the actions against the Mormon church. They are incidental to the discussion. The argument encompasses all religious denominations that believe in Adam and Eve.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
If the thread were about Mormonism I would be happy to oblige.

It is, and no you wouldn't otherwise you'd have to provide some evidence for your assertions for the first time in your life, which we all know you cannot and will not do.

Quote:
It is not.

Yes it is.
Quote:
I will close the thread first.

Go on then. Let's see you do just that.
Jim

"the original point says that Christians are under threat by the actions against the Mormon Church."

Sorry...since the vast majority of Christians do not consider "the Mormon Church" to be Christians, then whatever action taken - or not taken - against the Mormon church will not affect Christianity.
Derek

Jim wrote:
"the original point says that Christians are under threat by the actions against the Mormon Church."

Sorry...since the vast majority of Christians do not consider "the Mormon Church" to be Christians, then whatever action taken - or not taken - against the Mormon church will not affect Christianity.


You are obviously wrong. Mormons are Christians. If you don't believe that then move on. This thread is not for you. It is for Christians. Thank you for your contribution.
Jim

The O/P mentioned mormons, therefore the thread is about mormons.
Derek

[quote="Shaker:107270"]

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
If the thread were about Mormonism I would be happy to oblige.

It is, and no you wouldn't otherwise you'd have to provide some evidence for your assertions for the first time in your life, which we all know you cannot and will not do


No, I don't have to do anything, especially where you are concerned, as I recognise your tactics to derail. The topic here is about a Christian faith who is being summons to a magistrates court to answer to a charge of fraud over the existence of Adam and Eve, it is not about who likes or dislikes the Mormons, one of the most respected religions in the world that is being condemned here by someone who is a member of a cult within other faiths. A blight to all religions that can play a guitar and say "praise the Lord" in most of the sentences which takes his name in vain.

Quote:
Quote:
It is not.

Yes it is.


Here we go. Your yes it is and my no it's not childish rhetoric again that you so love. Why don't you discuss what I have posted is the OP or just go away.

Quote:
Quote:
I will close the thread first.

Go on then. Let's see you do just that.

I do not play to your tune. If it become irretrievably because you are turning a discussion into something personal, then I will, and then I will return the favour in every thread that you participate in. If you want to see me do that then carry on.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
it is not about who likes or dislikes the Mormons, one of the most respected religions in the world


Evidence needed for this assertion as well as the earlier ones you've wee'd yourself and run away from.


Quote:
I do not play to your tune. If it become irretrievably because you are turning a discussion into something personal

I have some familiarity with and, I flatter myself to think, facility with a number of other languages but I'm afraid I'm only able to respond to threads written in normal English.
Derek

Jim wrote:
The O/P mentioned mormons, therefore the thread is about mormons.


The OP mentions Thomas S Monson, is the thread about him. It mentions District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe, is it about her. It mentions Muslims so is it about them. It mentions Christianity, could it be about that? Are you incapable of being able to get a general idea of what it is about just by reading it. It must me about Mormons because it mentions Mormons. Where did that logic come from.

Why don't you answer any of my post that makes a mockery of your faulse accusations.
Jim

Because you have yet to satisfactoraly refute those allegations.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Because you have yet to satisfactoraly refute those allegations.


What allegations

So you admit that you have not answered any of my post that makes a mockery of your faulse accusations. OK
Shaker

Jimbo is interested in allegations.

I'm interested in assertions - namely the ones you've made recently.

Any back-up of those?

Obviously I don't mind in the least that you attend to Jimbo first - fair do's. No problem there at all.

Just as long as you remember that you've made assertions which so far you've failed to back up with evidence.

I can wait.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Jimbo is interested in allegations.

I'm interested in assertions - namely the ones you've made recently.

Any back-up of those?

Obviously I don't mind in the least that you attend to Jimbo first - fair do's. No problem there at all.

Just as long as you remember that you've made assertions which so far you've failed to back up with evidence.

I can wait.


Why don't you go away and read a book. I am exercising my right to ignore your derailing techniques.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Why don't you go away and read a book.

I do a great deal of that already. I always have. It's probably why I'm as good at English as you are not.

Quote:
I am exercising my right to ignore your derailing techniques.

I am exercising my right to press you to provide evidence for the baseless assertions with which you spam this forum.

You're free to exercise your right to ignore such demands, but of course that just makes you look like somebody who makes empty and baseless claims and is too afraid to provide evidence for the same.

This will be absolutely no surprise to anyone, having seen it a great many times before, but it does no harm and as far as I'm concerned some good to bring it to the fore, just so we can remind ourselves (as though we need it) of what you really are.
bnabernard

At the end of the day I would say that any movement subject to 'faith'  is going to get short shrift in the knock on effect of setting judgement alongside accepted historical evidence proposed by the archelogical discoveries and attested to by non faith movement entities.

On that basis then christianity becomes a faith movement reliant on historical documents that fail to be proven but require trust in a God that cannot be seen.

Ergo we get a situation where religions become undermined by court sanction against faith.

bernard (hug)
Derek

[quote="Shaker:107291"]

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Why don't you go away and read a book.

I do a great deal of that already. I always have. It's probably why I'm as good at English as you are not.


One thing a like about you. You are sooo humble. May I draw you attention to where we are. Only in the bear pit are your base, low class insult acceptable. I am at a disadvantage here as I comply with the rules and therefore I cannot respond in a way that your post deserves. I will ignore it this time but I have to say that I would have expected the moderators to have pick up on such a debasing and nasty remark outside the bear pit.

Quote:
Quote:
I am exercising my right to ignore your derailing techniques.

I am exercising my right to press you to provide evidence for the baseless assertions with which you spam this forum.


How have you concluded that any evidence that I have to substantiate my assertions are baseless assertions that I spam this forum with, I have not given any evidence. I have no intentions on giving any evidence here as it would fulfil your desire to derail this thread. That is not what this thread is for. So, exercise your right all you like, the thread is about the threat against Christianity by using outdated laws to challenge the existence of Adam and Eve. If you are not interested in that then may I suggest you leave the discussion. You are an unwelcome element here.

Quote:
You're free to exercise your right to ignore such demands, but of course that just makes you look like somebody who makes empty and baseless claims and is too afraid to provide evidence for the same.


If this was a thread on Mormonism I could put forward evidence that would suggest that Mormonism is a well respected Christian religion but the thread is about the threat against Christianity by attempting to vilify religions who believe in Adam and Eve.

Unlike yourself, I am not here to make friends. I am here to express my opinions based on my knowledge and experience. I do not care what you or your cronies think I know what I know to be true and will express that opinion regardless as to your bullying techniques here. You, a wee man, call me afraid. I am afraid that you have that wrong.


Quote:
This will be absolutely no surprise to anyone, having seen it a great many times before, but it does no harm and as far as I'm concerned some good to bring it to the fore, just so we can remind ourselves (as though we need it) of what you really are.


May I remind you that last Sunday Julie and The Boyg, with some help from IvyOwl, exposed who you really are on the Cyber Bullying thread in the bear pit. You have no real credibility on this forum. You have lost that now.

What I really am is a child of God who believes that God and his son, Jesus Christ both live. What I am is truthful and honest with more morals in my little figure then you have in your whole body. What I am is someone who is always willing to forgive men of their trespassers so that my trespasses may be forgiven. What I am is a follower of Jesus Christ and, therefore, a self proclaimed Christian. And finally, what I am is an exposer of those who claim to draw near to Him with their mouths but in their hearts they are far from Him, and an exposer of the anti-Christian anti-Christ. Anyone one not a part of your clique knows that. I am your adversary. Which has brought me to a sad conclusion. You hate Christianity and all that it stands for. You have said that you would prefer a world without it. All of which is your choice, but how are you able to get two so called Christians eating out of the palm of your hand. If I were anyone of them I swear that I would have to take serious council and fast and pray to ask why I would be befriended by you. Now I know the answer as surely as I know their is a nose on my face but neither have a clue. Most atheist are not that bad but if someone like you tried to befriend me I would know why.
Derek

[quote="bnabernard:107292"]

Quote:
At the end of the day I would say that any movement subject to 'faith'  is going to get short shrift in the knock on effect of setting judgement alongside accepted historical evidence proposed by the archelogical discoveries and attested to by non faith movement entities.


Yes, I think that is what the Mormon church believe as well. This is not the first time that this has happened. He gets death threats on a daily basis from those who claim to be Christians. I am told that the majority comes from bornos..

Quote:
On that basis then christianity becomes a faith movement reliant on historical documents that fail to be proven but require trust in a God that cannot be seen.


Yes, we believe in something that cannot be seen and scriptures that have no concrete origin. But we have faith in a living God and His son Jesus Christ that eventually become a knowledge.

Quote:
Ergo we get a situation where religions become undermined by court sanction against faith.


So, can I then assume that you see this as a sign of the times. Christianity falling from within assisted by secularism.
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:

May I draw you attention to where we are. Only in the bear pit are your base, low class insult acceptable. I am at a disadvantage here as I comply with the rules and therefore I cannot respond in a way that your post deserves. I will ignore it this time but I have to say that I would have expected the moderators to have pick up on such a debasing and nasty remark outside the bear pit.

How have you concluded that any evidence that I have to substantiate my assertions are baseless assertions that I spam this forum with, I have not given any evidence. I have no intentions on giving any evidence here as it would fulfil your desire to derail this thread. That is not what this thread is for. So, exercise your right all you like, the thread is about the threat against Christianity by using outdated laws to challenge the existence of Adam and Eve. If you are not interested in that then may I suggest you leave the discussion. You are an unwelcome element here.

If this was a thread on Mormonism I could put forward evidence that would suggest that Mormonism is a well respected Christian religion but the thread is about the threat against Christianity by attempting to vilify religions who believe in Adam and Eve.

Unlike yourself, I am not here to make friends. I am here to express my opinions based on my knowledge and experience. I do not care what you or your cronies think I know what I know to be true and will express that opinion regardless as to your bullying techniques here. You, a wee man, call me afraid. I am afraid that you have that wrong.

May I remind you that last Sunday Julie and The Boyg, with some help from IvyOwl, exposed who you really are on the Cyber Bullying thread in the bear pit. You have no real credibility on this forum. You have lost that now.

What I really am is a child of God who believes that God and his son, Jesus Christ both live. What I am is truthful and honest with more morals in my little figure then you have in your whole body. What I am is someone who is always willing to forgive men of their trespassers so that my trespasses may be forgiven. What I am is a follower of Jesus Christ and, therefore, a self proclaimed Christian. And finally, what I am is an exposer of those who claim to draw near to Him with their mouths but in their hearts they are far from Him, and an exposer of the anti-Christian anti-Christ. Anyone one not a part of your clique knows that. I am your adversary.


Ralph2 wrote:
. . . the thread is about the threat against Christianity . . .


No it's not, it's about people exposing the lies of the LDS and those who promote the LDS propaganda - one of the head honchos being Thomas Monson.

Ralph2 wrote:
He gets death threats on a daily basis from those who claim to be Christians. I am told that the majority comes from bornos..


"Ralphiepoos", you really shouldn't believe everything that you are told.  Do you have some evidence for what you are told or is it another baseless assertion?
Jim

If the BOA were set up as a basis on which to determine the veracity of Mormonism, it wouldn't last five minutes under even the most cursory of scrutiny.
Derek

Jim wrote:
If the BOA were set up as a basis on which to determine the veracity of Mormonism, it wouldn't last five minutes under even the most cursory of scrutiny.


Not when the scrutiniser knows who the author is. You lack comprehension of the capabilities of the God you claim to worship. You believe that God can only give revelation if he reads from a authenticated papyrus. You do not see the capabilities of God who is omnipotent and omniscient. You could be calling God a fraudster.
Derek

[quote="Ketty:107300"]
Ralph2 wrote:

May I draw you attention to where we are. Only in the bear pit are your base, low class insult acceptable. I am at a disadvantage here as I comply with the rules and therefore I cannot respond in a way that your post deserves. I will ignore it this time but I have to say that I would have expected the moderators to have pick up on such a debasing and nasty remark outside the bear pit.

How have you concluded that any evidence that I have to substantiate my assertions are baseless assertions that I spam this forum with, I have not given any evidence. I have no intentions on giving any evidence here as it would fulfil your desire to derail this thread. That is not what this thread is for. So, exercise your right all you like, the thread is about the threat against Christianity by using outdated laws to challenge the existence of Adam and Eve. If you are not interested in that then may I suggest you leave the discussion. You are an unwelcome element here.

If this was a thread on Mormonism I could put forward evidence that would suggest that Mormonism is a well respected Christian religion but the thread is about the threat against Christianity by attempting to vilify religions who believe in Adam and Eve.

Unlike yourself, I am not here to make friends. I am here to express my opinions based on my knowledge and experience. I do not care what you or your cronies think I know what I know to be true and will express that opinion regardless as to your bullying techniques here. You, a wee man, call me afraid. I am afraid that you have that wrong.

May I remind you that last Sunday Julie and The Boyg, with some help from IvyOwl, exposed who you really are on the Cyber Bullying thread in the bear pit. You have no real credibility on this forum. You have lost that now.

What I really am is a child of God who believes that God and his son, Jesus Christ both live. What I am is truthful and honest with more morals in my little figure then you have in your whole body. What I am is someone who is always willing to forgive men of their trespassers so that my trespasses may be forgiven. What I am is a follower of Jesus Christ and, therefore, a self proclaimed Christian. And finally, what I am is an exposer of those who claim to draw near to Him with their mouths but in their hearts they are far from Him, and an exposer of the anti-Christian anti-Christ. Anyone one not a part of your clique knows that. I am your adversary.


Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
. . . the thread is about the threat against Christianity . . .


No it's not, it's about people exposing the lies of the LDS and those who promote the LDS propaganda - one of the head honchos being Thomas Monson.


Mormons are not given to lying. That is bornos who claim the trinity and god incarnate but it is just not in the word of God, anywhere. No, the Mormon believes that if they lie they will be thrust into hell. That would exclude you from their congregation.

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
He gets death threats on a daily basis from those who claim to be Christians. I am told that the majority comes from bornos..


"Ralphiepoos", you really shouldn't believe everything that you are told.  Do you have some evidence for what you are told or is it another baseless assertion?


That is a bit rich coming from you. I have seen them, but do not believe me, pop yourself on a plane to Salt Lake City where the Church Offices are and you can see anything there pertaining to the Church. They are the most transparent church in the world, is their claim, unlike Mr Billy Graham and his dealings. But hey, I am going of topic again, you must try to stop derailing my thread. What is your opinion on a Christian church being taken to court for teaching the existence of Adam and Eve. Do you think it will threaten all Christian denominations, yours excluded, of course, as it is not Christian but they can play a pretty mean guitar and say with conviction "praise the Lord" "Amen"

Quizzimodo

Ralph said:

Quote:
for. So, exercise your right all you like, the thread is about the threat against Christianity by using outdated laws to challenge the existence of Adam and Eve.


I find your wording interesting.
Why is the law outdated?

Is it just because challenges your beliefs?
Would you consider it outdated if this case was brought against Islam?
Jim

Well, since the author - all too hunan - had a track record in deception and occultism, then I feel fairly confident that "fraud" when added to his CV, would not seem out of place.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
May I draw you attention to where we are. Only in the bear pit are your base, low class insult acceptable. I am at a disadvantage here as I comply with the rules and therefore I cannot respond in a way that your post deserves. I will ignore it this time
but I have to say that I would have expected the moderators to have pick up on such a debasing and nasty remark outside the bear pit.

So pointing out that my standard of English is superior to yours is a base, low class insult and a debasing and nasty remark now, is it? Goodness, how thin-skinned are you.

Quote:
How have you concluded that any evidence that I have to substantiate my assertions are baseless assertions that I spam this forum with, I have not given any evidence.

Precisely. That's what makes your assertions baseless. Who could forget the absolutely classic case, the Stephen Knight farrago - "I've seen the evidence, but the Freemasons made it disappear"

Quote:
I have no intentions on giving any evidence here

So where will you give it?

Quote:
Unlike yourself, I am not here to make friends.

Thank goodness for that!

Quote:
I am here to express my opinions based on my knowledge and experience.

... and the stuff you make up.

Quote:
May I remind you that last Sunday Julie and The Boyg, with some help from IvyOwl, exposed who you really are on the Cyber Bullying thread in the bear pit. You have no real credibility on this forum. You have lost that now.

Ah yes, this was supposedly in these posts which I asked you to point out to me by providing links and which you couldn't do. Got you now.

Quote:
What I really am is a child of God

It would be better for his reputation if you kept quiet about that, surely.

Quote:
What I am is truthful and honest with more morals in my little figure

Ever so 'umble, Uriah.

Quote:
I am your adversary.

Ah, something you've got right for a change.
Derek

[quote="Shaker:107318"

Quote:
Quote:
How have you concluded that any evidence that I have to substantiate my assertions are baseless assertions that I spam this forum with, I have not given any evidence.

Precisely. That's what makes your assertions baseless. Who could forget the absolutely classic case, the Stephen Knight farrago - "I've seen the evidence, but the Freemasons made it disappear"

The statement is not baseless it is true. That you consider it to be baseless only shows your ignorance to the capabilities of the Freemasons, which is perfectly understandable.
The Boyg

The Telegraph online wrote:

A formal summons signed by District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe warns Mr Monson, who is recognised by Mormons as God’s prophet on Earth, that a warrant for his arrest could be issued if he fails to make the journey from Salt Lake City, Utah, for a hearing on March 14.

........

The document suggests that asking members of the church to make contributions while promoting theological doctrines which “might be untrue or misleading” could be a breach of the Fraud Act 2006.

........

Two virtually identical summonses were sent to Mr Monson naming Stephen Bloor, a former Mormon bishop, and Christopher Denis Ralph, another former convert, as victims of the alleged fraud.

It argues that by being persuaded to pay a tithe to the church on the basis of teachings which might not be true, the president could have committed fraud.


Actually this could possibily have ramifications beyond the LDS Church.

If the courts decide that asking members to make contributions whilst teaching things that are demonstrably false (or even probably false, the citation refers to doctrines that "might be untrue or misleading") does constitute fraud under the 2006 act then I can see other churches, particularly those who teach a strictly literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, falling foul of this act.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
The statement is not baseless it is true. That you consider it to be baseless only shows your ignorance to the capabilities of the Freemasons, which is perfectly understandable.

An assertion is baseless if you fail to provide a base for it - a base being some supporting evidence. That's what baseless means, Dezza.
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:
Mormons are not given to lying.


Demonstrably, and very clearly, yes they are.

Ralph2 wrote:
That is bornos who claim the trinity and god incarnate but it is just not in the word of God, anywhere. No, the Mormon believes that if they lie they will be thrust into hell. That would exclude you from their congregation.

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
He gets death threats on a daily basis from those who claim to be Christians. I am told that the majority comes from bornos..


"Ralphiepoos", you really shouldn't believe everything that you are told.  Do you have some evidence for what you are told or is it another baseless assertion?


That is a bit rich coming from you. I have seen them,


Really?

Truthfully?  

Are you sure?

So, you'll be able to prove what you are saying then, won't you about 'death threats, from bornos'?

Ralph2 wrote:
but do not believe me, pop yourself on a plane to Salt Lake City where the Church Offices are and you can see anything there pertaining to the Church. They are the most transparent church in the world, is their claim, unlike Mr Billy Graham and his dealings. But hey, I am going of topic again, you must try to stop derailing my thread. What is your opinion on a Christian church being taken to court for teaching the existence of Adam and Eve. Do you think it will threaten all Christian denominations, yours excluded, of course, as it is not Christian but they can play a pretty mean guitar and say with conviction "praise the Lord" "Amen"

http://s1288.photobucket.com/user..._Smart/brainwash2_zps10c6ce91.png


You are creating a straw man to cover up the real issue which is the lies perpetuated and promoted by the LDS.  It's not unusual for you to do that, but it will be interesting for them to have to try and prove their propaganda regarding the aboriginal Americans, etc, etc, etc, in a court of law.

I doubt if ever it will get there, but well done that man in raising the issue in a most public manner.
bnabernard

Wedges with thin edges spring to mind  

bernard (hug)

edit; response to borg
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
The Telegraph online wrote:

A formal summons signed by District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe warns Mr Monson, who is recognised by Mormons as God’s prophet on Earth, that a warrant for his arrest could be issued if he fails to make the journey from Salt Lake City, Utah, for a hearing on March 14.

........

The document suggests that asking members of the church to make contributions while promoting theological doctrines which “might be untrue or misleading” could be a breach of the Fraud Act 2006.

........

Two virtually identical summonses were sent to Mr Monson naming Stephen Bloor, a former Mormon bishop, and Christopher Denis Ralph, another former convert, as victims of the alleged fraud.

It argues that by being persuaded to pay a tithe to the church on the basis of teachings which might not be true, the president could have committed fraud.


Actually this could possibily have ramifications beyond the LDS Church.

If the courts decide that asking members to make contributions whilst teaching things that are demonstrably false (or even probably false, the citation refers to doctrines that "might be untrue or misleading") does constitute fraud under the 2006 act then I can see other churches, particularly those who teach a strictly literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, falling foul of this act.


If this post was made at the beginning of the thread it would have been the only post necessary instead of watching Jim desperately trying to bring his Mormon bias to the topic. It should have never been this long. It is completely true and accurate. What is there left to say? If the news report is accurate then this action does pose a threat to other Christian faiths.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
If the news report is accurate then this action does pose a threat to other Christian faiths.


I think that there is no doubt that the report is accurate. The real question is whether or not the courts agree with the interpretation of the 2006 Fraud Act.

i.e. That the legal definition of "fraud" includes asking members of a church to make contributions while promoting theological doctrines which “might be untrue or misleading”.

If they do then any church that preaches the literal resurrection of Christ and encourages it's members to support the church financially could potentially be found guilty of "fraud".
Jim

Point of information?
What "Mormon biase"?
I am absolutely NOT biased toward Mormons!
I am certainly biased AGAINST Mormons - and any other false sects.
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:
If the news report is accurate then this action does pose a threat to other Christian faiths.


As accurate, say, as you stating it was a Magistrate that was bringing the action, for example?

It poses no threat at all to Christianity.  Unless of course you don't believe the Bible*.  However, it is exposing the lies of LDS and for that, I'm happy you've raised the topic, and I'm even happier it's hit the headlines.  

* If you've not read it to the end: GOD (that's the real One: the triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit) - wins!
Derek

Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
If the news report is accurate then this action does pose a threat to other Christian faiths.


As accurate, say, as you stating it was a Magistrate that was bringing the action, for example?

It poses no threat at all to Christianity.  Unless of course you don't believe the Bible*.  However, it is exposing the lies of LDS and for that, I'm happy you've raised the topic, and I'm even happier it's hit the headlines.  

* If you've not read it to the end: GOD (that's the real One: the triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit) - wins!


You always make yourself look like the unintelligent one when trying to make others look unintelligent.

You are obsessed with Mormons so to answer anything you say about them is futile and pojntless. Christians do not do that.

It was issued in response to a private prosecution attempt by Tom Phillips, a disaffected former Mormon who now runs MormonThink a website highly critical of the church.

Under little-used legal procedures, people who say they have evidence that someone has committed a crime can ask a magistrate to issue a summons requiring them to attend a court hearing.

The district judge would then decide whether or not to proceed with a case or dismiss it
Derek

Jim wrote:
Point of information?
What "Mormon biase"?
I am absolutely NOT biased toward Mormons!
I am certainly biased AGAINST Mormons - and any other false sects.


You need to read this again. It is a contradiction in terms
Jim

I did.
It isn't.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
If the news report is accurate then this action does pose a threat to other Christian faiths.


I think that there is no doubt that the report is accurate. The real question is whether or not the courts agree with the interpretation of the 2006 Fraud Act.

i.e. That the legal definition of "fraud" includes asking members of a church to make contributions while promoting theological doctrines which “might be untrue or misleading”.

If they do then any church that preaches the literal resurrection of Christ and encourages it's members to support the church financially could potentially be found guilty of "fraud".


There is a point of concern here. Tithing is not mandatory. Nobody asked you to pay tithing. For many years I didn't because I did not agree with it, still don't really, but that is probably because I like to keep my money in the bank. I can confirm though that nobody, in my 25 years of church attendance, ever asked me to pay tithing. It was not even mentioned in Bishops personal interviews. Like the word of wisdom it is discretionary.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
There is a point of concern here. Tithing is not mandatory. Nobody asked you to pay tithing.


So what?

It is "fraud" that is the subject here not extortion.

No one is ever forced to give their money to fraudsters.

Personally I don't think that this action will go anywhere because I don't believe that it was the intent of the lawmakers when framing the 2006 act to prevent the genuine expression of belief and I believe that the courts will see that too.

Of course, if it could be demonstrated that the leaders of a church were deliberately misleading their followers about things that they knew to be untrue then that would be a different matter entirely.
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:
You always make yourself look like the unintelligent one when trying to make others look unintelligent.


Tut tut - this is not the Bear Pit "Ralphiepoos".

But I bow to your superior knowledge when it comes to being unintelligent.    

In case you missed it, I confirmed the action poses no threat at all to Christianity.  Unless of course you don't believe the Bible*.  However, it is exposing the lies of LDS and for that, I'm happy you've raised the topic, and I'm even happier it's hit the headlines.  

* If you've not read it to the end: GOD (that's the real One: the triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit) - wins!

The only ones who will feel threatened by this are the hierarchy of the LDS - but then again, those with any intelligence will have already sussed the lies upon which this organisation is founded.
LeClerc

Re: Is Christianity on Trial

Hello Ralph

Ralph2 wrote:
Is Christianity on trial? Does this set a presidence to all religions who believe in a literal Adam and Eve, or is this a mockery of Britians judicial system when a disgruntled ex-member, with money in his pocket, is allowed to incur unnecessary costs, to both the British public and the individual who they accused, by using a rarely used law to summons him, an 87 year old frail man, to appear before a Magestrates court to answer why they are telling their congregation that Adam and Eve were real people who lived in the garden of Eden, thus committing fraud.


This could be interesting bearing in mind the following.

Quote:

A proposal to end the swearing of oaths on the Bible and other holy books in courts in England and Wales has been rejected by magistrates.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24588854

Regards

LeClerc
The Boyg

The action has been thrown out:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26666144

Quote:
Tom Phillips claimed Mr Monson breached the Fraud Act by seeking money using "untrue or misleading" statements.

But District Judge Howard Riddle called it an "abuse" of the court process.

Speaking at Westminster Magistrates' Court, the judge said: "I am satisfied that the process of the court is being manipulated to provide a high-profile forum to attack the religious beliefs of others."

...........

The summons, signed by District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe, had ordered Mr Monson to appear at Westminster and threatened arrest if he did not.

But Judge Riddle ruled the threat of arrest was "wrong" and should not have been made.

He described the attempted prosecution as "tenuous", with no chance of ever making it to trial even if Mr Monson attended.

"To convict, a jury would need to be sure that the religious teachings of the Mormon Church are untrue or misleading," he said.

"No judge in a secular court in England and Wales would allow that issue to be put to a jury."
Rose

What a terribly misunderstood OP this was!

Yet another thread taken up by concentrating on people's personal belief and attacking them rather than looking at the bigger question being asked!

Only a few posters, even got what was being said here!

It reminds me of that poem


Quote:


They came for the Communists, and I

didn't object - For I wasn't

a Communist;

They came for the Socialists, and I

didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;

They came for the labor leaders, and I

didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;

They came for the Jews, and I didn't

object - For I wasn't a Jew;

Then they came for me -

And there was no one left to object.

Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor,

1892-1984



Just add "Mormon" where you see "Jew".

I'm glad it was thrown out, otherwise perhaps other religious establishments and people could have been labelled fraudsters, if religious beliefs, could be challenged if collecting money was involved.

To an Athiest , you are all either deluded or mistaken!

Therefore It is possible Ketty and Jim's beliefs could be rightfully challenged by Athiests, if they used their beliefs, to get people to donate to their cause!

Julie
Rose

Ralph was making a valid point here!

He wasn't the only person to question the whole issue

Quote:


Analysis


Robert Pigott
Religious affairs correspondent, BBC News
There has been a long history of reluctance by judges to intervene in theological disputes.

As far back as 1949, a senior judge said that "no temporal court of law can determine the truth of any religious belief... and it ought not to attempt to do so".

Since then judges have become more outspoken in distancing the law from religion.

Had the court decided to intervene in claims by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it might have had awkward implications for other religions.

Even vehement Christian critics of the Mormons accept that a court ruling against the literal truth of Adam and Eve could be the start of a slippery slope, inviting challenges to other beliefs, such as the belief that Jesus was born to a virgin.


The court's verdict will be a relief to Mormons, whose 12th article of faith expresses a belief in "being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honouring and sustaining the law".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26666144



But hey!

Carry on letting that prejudice blind you!




They came for the Communists, and I

didn't object - For I wasn't

a Communist;

They came for the Socialists, and I

didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;

They came for the labor leaders, and I

didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;

They came for the Mormons, and I didn't

object - For I wasn't a Mormon;

Then they came for me -

And there was no one left to object.

Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor,

1892-1984



Julie
Jim

Rose wrote:
What a terribly misunderstood OP this was!

Yet another thread taken up by concentrating on people's personal belief and attacking them rather than looking at the bigger question being asked!

Only a few posters, even got what was being said here!

It reminds me of that poem


Quote:


They came for the Communists, and I

didn't object - For I wasn't

a Communist;

They came for the Socialists, and I

didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;

They came for the labor leaders, and I

didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;

They came for the Jews, and I didn't

object - For I wasn't a Jew;

Then they came for me -

And there was no one left to object.

Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor,

1892-1984



Just add "Mormon" where you see "Jew".

I'm glad it was thrown out, otherwise perhaps other religious establishments and people could have been labelled fraudsters, if religious beliefs, could be challenged if collecting money was involved.

To an Athiest , you are all either deluded or mistaken!

Therefore It is possible Ketty and Jim's beliefs could be rightfully challenged by Athiests, if they used their beliefs, to get people to donate to their cause!

Julie
 

Eh?
No-one is disputing the fact that Smithites can swallow whatever fraudulent deceotive garbage they want!
No-one is denying them the right to worship as they please, when they please, or even spread the rubbish Smith and co taught them.
They have every right to do so.
Just as Christians have the right to call them out as anttichrist, pseudo-Christians and false prophets.
Rose

Jim

This was from Ralph's OP

Quote:


Is Christianity on trial? Does this set a presidence to all religions who believe in a literal Adam and Eve, or is this a mockery of Britians judicial system when a disgruntled ex-member, with money in his pocket, is allowed to incur unnecessary costs, to both the British public and the individual who they accused, by using a rarely used law to summons him, an 87 year old frail man, to appear before a Magestrates court to answer why they are telling their congregation that Adam and Eve were real people who lived in the garden of Eden, thus committing fraud. There are eight charges, that are all just as ridiculous, but sanctioned by a British judge. Does this open the gateway for all religions who claim that Jesus is the Christ to be prosecuted for fraud. Will Muslim leaders be summoned to court for making up the character called Mohamed. Can anyone here justify this farse or is this a sign of the times?



Forget for a moment the Mormon angle on it.

What if this had not had anything to do with Mormons? What if it had been about one of the churches you do consider Christian?

What if one of the ministers from that church had been on trial for saying the same thing?

What if people in your church were being hauled up for fraud because they had said about a literal Adam and Eve or the virgin birth in their service?

This is the point I think Ralph was commenting on.

Why was everyone so obsessed with the fact his background was LDS?
Does that make it ok or something?

Because it appears that way, reading the thread!

If it makes it ok to treat someone that way purely because they are LDS, then that is prejudice, because Ralph's basic point was a relevant one!

Julie
Jim

Christianity* is always on trial, Julie - or at least it should be.
We are ambassadors of Christ** on earth, His representatives. People judge whom we accept as Lord and Saviour by how we act, how we live.
There is little or no persecution of believers in this country, merely a few irritants which we should shrug off and get on with serving the one we cal Lord and God.
I know of individuals who have been on trial for their faith: I've posted of a chap I once knew who died in Pakistan because of the LORD he would not renounce.
What we have here is nothing in comparison to the stresses and strains of our brothers and sisters.

* - those who accept God, who is Father, Son and Spirit.
** - God Incarnate.
Rose

Jim wrote:
Christianity* is always on trial, Julie - or at least it should be.
We are ambassadors of Christ** on earth, His representatives. People judge whom we accept as Lord and Saviour by how we act, how we live.
There is little or no persecution of believers in this country, merely a few irritants which we should shrug off and get on with serving the one we cal Lord and God.
I know of individuals who have been on trial for their faith: I've posted of a chap I once knew who died in Pakistan because of the LORD he would not renounce.
What we have here is nothing in comparison to the stresses and strains of our brothers and sisters.

* - those who accept God, who is Father, Son and Spirit.
** - God Incarnate.


I suppose so!

In some places it is difficult to be a Christian.

Julie
Jim

Rose wrote:
Jim wrote:
Christianity* is always on trial, Julie - or at least it should be.
We are ambassadors of Christ** on earth, His representatives. People judge whom we accept as Lord and Saviour by how we act, how we live.
There is little or no persecution of believers in this country, merely a few irritants which we should shrug off and get on with serving the one we cal Lord and God.
I know of individuals who have been on trial for their faith: I've posted of a chap I once knew who died in Pakistan because of the LORD he would not renounce.
What we have here is nothing in comparison to the stresses and strains of our brothers and sisters.

* - those who accept God, who is Father, Son and Spirit.
** - God Incarnate.


I suppose so!

In some places it is difficult to be a Christian.

Julie
 



Yep.
Salt Lake City for one.
Rose

Jim wrote:
Rose wrote:
Jim wrote:
Christianity* is always on trial, Julie - or at least it should be.
We are ambassadors of Christ** on earth, His representatives. People judge whom we accept as Lord and Saviour by how we act, how we live.
There is little or no persecution of believers in this country, merely a few irritants which we should shrug off and get on with serving the one we cal Lord and God.
I know of individuals who have been on trial for their faith: I've posted of a chap I once knew who died in Pakistan because of the LORD he would not renounce.
What we have here is nothing in comparison to the stresses and strains of our brothers and sisters.

* - those who accept God, who is Father, Son and Spirit.
** - God Incarnate.


I suppose so!

In some places it is difficult to be a Christian.

Julie
 



Yep.
Salt Lake City for one.


Really? Why?

I don't see anything on the Internet that suggests it is a problem and this messageboard below  is non LDS living in Utah.

They think it isn't a problem! In fact their attitude to LDS is quite positive!

http://www.city-data.com/forum/sa...34992-utah-non-lds-christian.html

Quote:


Although Salt Lake City is the home of the world-wide headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ( The Mormons ), over 40 % of Utah's population call another religion the one they choose to practice. Our citizens are a mix of religious and cultural backgrounds, so you should be able to find your religious service being practiced here. In fact, there are more than 25 Catholic Churches alone in the Salt Lake Valley.

http://www.saltlakecityutah.org/aboutsaltlake.htm



Julie
Rose

In fact the opposite seems to be true

Quote:


Anti-Mormonism is discrimination, persecution, hostility or prejudice directed at members of the Latter Day Saint movement, particularly The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The term is often used to describe persons or literature that are critical of their adherents, institutions, or beliefs, or physical attacks against specific Mormons or the LDS Church as a whole.
Opposition to Mormonism began before the first Latter Day Saint church was established in 1830 and continues to the present day. The most vocal and strident opposition occurred during the 19th century, particularly during the Utah War of the 1850s, and in the second half of the century when the practice of polygamy in Utah Territory was widely considered by the U.S. Republican Party as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" along with slavery.[1]
Modern-day opposition generally takes the form of websites offering alternative views about Mormonism or non-violent protest at large Latter-day Saint gatherings such as the church's biannual General Conference, outside of Latter-day Saint pageants, or at events surrounding the construction of new LDS temples. Opponents generally allege that the church's claims to divine origin are false, or that it is non-Christian, or that it is a religion based on fraud or deceit on the part of its past and present leaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism




Julie
Rose

Quote:


More recent persecution against Mormons in the U.S. has occasionally taken the shape of acts of vandalism against church property (see Protests against Proposition 8 supporters).[53] At an LDS Church building in Orangevale, Sacramento County, vandals spray painted "No on 8" and "No on Prop 8" on the front sign and sidewalk.[54] An affiliate group of the radical Trans/Queer organization Bash Back!, claims credit for pouring glue into the locks of an LDS Church building and spray painting on its walls. An internet posting signed by Bash Back!’s Olympia chapter said: “The Mormon church ... needs to be confronted, attacked, subverted and destroyed.”[55] According to the Chicago Tribune, the acts of vandalism against the LDS Church appear to be in retaliation for support of Proposition 8.[55] Police reported that nine church buildings were also damaged in Utah that month.[56][57] The Anti-Defamation League released a statement condemning the "defacement and destruction of property."[58]
In November 2008, the United States Postal Service delivered envelopes containing white powder to two LDS Church temples—the Los Angeles California Temple and the Salt Lake Temple—and to the Knights of Columbus' national headquarters in New Haven, Connecticut, prompting a hazardous materials response and a federal domestic terrorism investigation.[59][60][61] The LDS Church blamed opponents of the marriage ban for sending the hoax mailings, while a group that also supported the measure condemned "acts of domestic terrorism against our supporters."[62] LGBT rights groups, such as Equality Utah and Equality California, have spoken out against the use of violence in protests, and note that the source of the "white powder" mailings has not been determined.[62][63]
In Latin America, however, hatred of Mormons has often taken on a much deadlier form. In May 1989, members of a terrorist organization called the Zarate Willka Armed Forces of Liberation murdered two Mormon missionaries in La Paz, Bolivia. Another Bolivian terrorist group, the Tupac Katari Guerrilla Army, claimed responsibility for two attacks against Mormon chapels. The Latauro Youth Movement in Chile conducted 27 small-scale bombings against LDS meetinghouses in 1992.[64] The MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base lists 149 individual attacks that have been carried out against Mormon targets in Latin America since 1983.[65] It also lists a 2001 chapel-bombing in Croatia.[66]




Julie
Jim

Rose wrote:
Jim wrote:
Rose wrote:
Jim wrote:
Christianity* is always on trial, Julie - or at least it should be.
We are ambassadors of Christ** on earth, His representatives. People judge whom we accept as Lord and Saviour by how we act, how we live.
There is little or no persecution of believers in this country, merely a few irritants which we should shrug off and get on with serving the one we cal Lord and God.
I know of individuals who have been on trial for their faith: I've posted of a chap I once knew who died in Pakistan because of the LORD he would not renounce.
What we have here is nothing in comparison to the stresses and strains of our brothers and sisters.

* - those who accept God, who is Father, Son and Spirit.
** - God Incarnate.


I suppose so!

In some places it is difficult to be a Christian.

Julie
 



Yep.
Salt Lake City for one.


Really? Why?

I don't see anything on the Internet that suggests it is a problem and this messageboard below  is non LDS living in Utah.

They think it isn't a problem! In fact their attitude to LDS is quite positive!

http://www.city-data.com/forum/sa...34992-utah-non-lds-christian.html

Quote:


Although Salt Lake City is the home of the world-wide headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ( The Mormons ), over 40 % of Utah's population call another religion the one they choose to practice. Our citizens are a mix of religious and cultural backgrounds, so you should be able to find your religious service being practiced here. In fact, there are more than 25 Catholic Churches alone in the Salt Lake Valley.

http://www.saltlakecityutah.org/aboutsaltlake.htm



Julie
 

http://www.suindependent.com/news...rimination-in-Southern-Utah?.html
Rose

Jim, that's just people!

If you live in an area where you are in the minority, you are almost bound to feel overlooked sometimes.

I don't think it excuses religious hatred of Mormons, or anyone else.

In some parts of the world some Christians really are killed for their faith!

I don't think Salt Lake City compares, although you might get fed up with people trying to convert you!

But I'd get fed up with that if I lived in the USA on the Bible Belt!

Julie

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum