Deseret News on Monson summons

[_Sammy Jankins]

'Bizarre' British summons roundly criticized by legal experts, religious freedom advocates

It's about what you would expect. They don't mention the 7 points.

One thing that is amusing about it though is they try to have their cake and eat it too. By that I mean, they first stress that it is a bizarre case that should be thrown out any second and that Monson won't have to appear. While at the same time they play up the religious freedom angle. You should at least have to choose. It's either an absurd case with no chance of success, or it's a "sign of the times." Because if it is just a frivolous and bizarre case with no chance of success, then it isn't representative of a trend.

[_Sammy Jankins]

From the article:

On the contrary," Linker continued, "it's part of a broader, troubling trans-Atlantic trend of secular liberalism steamrolling competing, non-liberal visions of the good."

Secular liberalism?
Look you can't just take something you don't like and then attribute to a political demographic you disagree without some explanation.
Whether or not you agree with this case, the charge is that the church misrepresents itself, and it's filed by Ex-Mormons. Say what you will about Tom Phillips, but I see no evidence that he is motivated by "secular liberalism."

[_Craig Paxton]

I'm finding that the gulf between believers and non-believers is extremely wide and this lawsuit has only driven that wedge between the two even further.

Yesterday I posted a link on my Facebook page to the lawsuit story in the Salt Lake Tribune. I did not add any comments, just the standard Facebook link. I guess I was naïve as I wasn't prepared for the vitriol that followed. Merely posting the link started a domino effect of comments expressing great offence that I would even post such a link. While I understand that by living in Utah the majority of my Facebook friends are LDS, I was taken back that this story was viewed with so much offense by members of the church, both friends and family, on my Facebook page...it really struck a nerve...and it wasn't pretty.

What I am trying to understand is why? Why can't this subject be discussed openly? While I understand that believers view President Monson as a prophet, should he be given special status? Is this subject off limits? Did I cross some line? It seems that prophets of old were subjected to all kinds of public ridicule. What is the nerve I struck by merely posting a link to this story? I would really like to seek understanding.

[_Themis]

From the article:

On the contrary," Linker continued, "it's part of a broader, troubling trans-Atlantic trend of secular liberalism steamrolling competing, non-liberal visions of the good."

Secular liberalism?
Look you can't just take something you don't like and then attribute to a political demographic you disagree without some explanation.
Whether or not you agree with this case, the charge is that the church misrepresents itself, and it's filed by Ex-Mormons. Say what you will about Tom Phillips, but I see no evidence that he is motivated by "secular liberalism."

It does appear it will get a lot of attention from members and even the non-member population in the western world. I wonder if this was his purpose all along. I am not surprised church news sources don't mention the 7 points, but I suspect that this is something that will get the interest of many members to want to read a lot more about it for entertainment purposes. The Mormon/Mitt moment was more about getting the world to look at Mormonism, even though members, including the leaders, had no idea what they were going to really see.

[_Themis]

What I am trying to understand is why? Why can't this subject be discussed openly? While I understand that believers view President Monson as a prophet, should he be given special status? Is this subject off limits? Did I cross some line? It seems that prophets of old were subjected to all kinds of public ridicule. What is the nerve I struck by merely posting a link to this story? I would really like to seek understanding.

The prophet does get special status. He shouldn't, but that is how the world works. The pope gets special status from his believers, as does the leader of Scientology. I assume your friends and family know you do not believe, so they have a very negative attitude towards you for posting it since they will see you as happy about it. If you hadn't I imagine one of them would have from an LDS source.

[_RockSlider]

Craig Paxton,

Things got ugly with my wife and I last night as well.

The cog-dis is STRONG on this one ... to a point it must simply be removed from view at this time.

[_Bazooka]

I'm finding that the gulf between believers and non-believers is extremely wide and this lawsuit has only driven that wedge between the two even further.

Yesterday I posted a link on my Facebook page to the lawsuit story in the Salt Lake Tribune. I did not add any comments, just the standard Facebook link. I guess I was naïve as I wasn't prepared for the vitriol that followed. Merely posting the link started a domino effect of comments expressing great offence that I would even post such a link. While I understand that by living in Utah the majority of my Facebook friends are LDS, I was taken back that this story was viewed with so much offense by members of the church, both friends and family, on my Facebook page...it really struck a nerve...and it wasn't pretty.

What I am trying to understand is why? Why can't this subject be discussed openly? While I understand that believers view President Monson as a prophet, should he be given special status? Is this subject off limits? Did I cross some line? It seems that prophets of old were subjected to all kinds of public ridicule. What is the nerve I struck by merely posting a link to this story? I would really like to seek understanding.

It can.
The question is "Why can't believing Mormons discuss this subject openly?" and that is far harder to understand.

[_Craig Paxton]

I'm finding that the gulf between believers and non-believers is extremely wide and this lawsuit has only driven that wedge between the two even further.

Yesterday I posted a link on my Facebook page to the lawsuit story in the Salt Lake Tribune. I did not add any comments, just the standard Facebook link. I guess I was naïve as I wasn't prepared for the vitriol that followed. Merely posting the link started a domino effect of comments expressing great offence that I would even post such a link. While I understand that by living in Utah the majority of my Facebook friends are LDS, I was taken back that this story was viewed with so much offense by members of the church, both friends and family, on my Facebook page...it really struck a nerve...and it wasn't pretty.

What I am trying to understand is why? Why can't this subject be discussed openly? While I understand that believers view President Monson as a prophet, should he be given special status? Is this subject off limits? Did I cross some line? It seems that prophets of old were subjected to all kinds of public ridicule. What is the nerve I struck by merely posting a link to this story? I would really like to seek understanding.

It can.
The question is "Why can't believing Mormons discuss this subject openly?" and that is far harder to understand.

Sorry Sammy didn't mean to hi jack your thread... this whole event seems to be very threatening...but why should it...truth always floats to the top...but for whatever reason religious truth claims, Mormon or otherwise...are untouchable

[_Sammy Jankins]

Don't worry. I don't consider it hijacked. You've made it more interesting. If anything the Deseret News is deflecting the same way individuals are.

[_Tobin]

You critics are pretty tone-deaf. This is a clear ATTACK on the LDS Church by an apostate. And the fact you fail to see how LDS members might be offended by that is exactly the problem with you critics.