It’s not the intention of this blog to comment on everything with this case (however I will come back to it here and there), fascinating as it is, this blogs purpose has the purpose of seeking to bring Mormons and anyone else for that matter to Christ, by faith. I hope people will tour around this site and come back here and there to see what we are saying.
So I want to start this blog by pointing you towards what I think are the best places to go for regular updates on all of this.
There are other great sites but these ones are the most closely connected to those actually pursuing this case.
However one thing has just caught my eye, this article on the exmormon.org site. On the subject of the Book of Abraham it says this:
–1) The Book of Abraham was translated from ancient Egyptian papyri by Joseph Smith (as relating to Mormon Church “truth” claims that the Book of Abraham is claimed to be the handwritten autobiographical account of Abraham, penned by Abraham himself.
Proving that this is a false representation by Monson and the Mormon Church is not an attack on the religious doctrine, per se, as found in its canonized Book of Abraham (even though one can assert there are falsehoods contained therein, as well as heinous doctrines); rather, what is being legally challenged is the claim made in the Book of Abraham’s introductory statement that it (the Book of Abraham) was produced as result of direct translation by Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith from ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics.
In an effort to get around its false representation, the Mormon Church is now claiming that Smith did not literally translate the Book of Abraham parchments from actual ancient Egyptian characters. Instead, the Mormon Church is claiming that Smith used those parchments only as a “catalyst” to facilitate an “inspired” translation that was not dependent on what was actually written on the papyri.
In actuality, the Book of Abraham (contrary to what it claims in its introduction), is not an account personally written by the ancient Israelite prophet Abraham by Abraham’s own hand up on papyri but, rather, is a common funerary text from the Egyptian Book of the Dead–of which there are many in existence and which have been accurately translated by professional Egyptologists. Phillips has personally seen such original Egyptian funerary texts in museums in Birmingham and London, England.
Even pro-Mormon Egyptologists have acknowledged that, contrary to Mormon Church truth claims, the Book of Abraham is not an actual translation from ancient Egyptian of Abraham’s life but, instead, the Book of Abraham is falsely represented to have been translated from papyri that are, in reality, from Egyptian Book of Dead, with no relation to at all Abraham’s life and not written by Abraham.
The Part that’s bolded particularly interested me, just last year a around of changes were made to Mormon scriptures, this as far as I am aware was by no means done in secret and they are available to buy online openly sold as new editions. However before these changes as talked about above, the book of Abraham Introduction said.
The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois. See History of the Church, vol. 4, pp. 519-534.
Now it says:
The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois.
In times past it has been absolutely denied that the papyrus found in the 1960′s were the actual ones that Joseph Smith used. LDS.org here, and Fair the LDS Apologetics organization here deny this to be the case.
So why the change? This idea that the book of Abraham is an inspired translation was never mentioned back in Joseph Smiths time. It seemed to be understood that Smith knew the language and translated it. An excellent article on this whole issue is here.
A very rare interview with a Mormon Apostle on this issue can be seen at the beginning of this video.
Again this idea that its an inspired translation and not a literal one is seeming to be communicated here, rather than boldly saying that Smith translated the plates literally and correctly. The Mormon Church has a long history of changing its doctrines and scriptures in response to social pressures. It seems that they may have seen this one coming.
I have had discussion with an LDS guy on facebook that adamantly denies that this Apostle Jeffrey Holland here is admitting the plates were not literally translated, how do you understand it? Why make that change if the above articles denying the papyrus were found are correct?
I read the links to blogs you have included in the post above. I had heard of Grant Palmer’s meeting with the mission president and the member of the first quorum of 70.
The 70 should come forward and identify himself and his convictions. I don’t intend on developing my full argument here, but simply I think this man over values his influence and under values honesty, personal integrity and doesn’t properly value those he is supposed to lead. The idea that it is better to keep people in the dark by one’s efforts, position, and authority is the ultimate affront to human dignity. Especially when the desire to exercise this control arises from determining that to do so is best for them. I could say more, but doubt there is much point.
If history has proven anything about Mormonism and similar movements, it will survive any crisis. There is a core of believers who will never leave, no matter what happens. This 70 could go and do a favour for those who would likely leave anyway over time and allow those who stay to be greatful for their own righteousness and sense of proximity to the second coming as even the very elect are deceived.
To continue to participate in a deliberate deception by stealthily attempting to change what the book of Abraham is and other things is to play a dark role indeed.
After doing some reading, Thomas Monson can appear in court by live video stream (like video conference) OR his attorney/solicitor can appear and represent him, in this stage of the law suit. Therefore, Thomas Monson will not be arrested if he does not personally show up in court in England.
This type of law suit does not require much proof, initially, from the accuser for the suit to be filed and to proceed forward, and it does not require much proof from the accuser for a summons to be issued to the accused to appear in court.
Interesting that this information has been intentionally left out on every site that is talking about this suit.
I wouldn’t say deliberately left out. I would say that most people have no knowledge of how the court systems work and so would not be aware that a respondent doesn’t have to necessarily appear.
Although you gave us three updates on this frivolous summons while it was pending, you never found it worthwhile to report what the Court decided.
It is a short opinion–only three pages–which can be found at http://img.ksl.com/slc/2516/251638/25163829.pdf
Here are excerpts from the decision:
***
“The information on which the summonses are based is contained in correspondence from Mr Phillips to the court from October 2013 to January 2014.
***
“These two summonses both state that failure to attend may result in a warrant being issued for Mr Monson’s arrest. It is common ground that that is wrong.
***
“The way the information was put before the court over a period of time makes it hard to isolate the essential ingredients. I have looked for a direct assertion that Mr Monson made the specific representations set out in the summonses. To this end I have read the 120 pages provided by the prosecutor [Mr Phillips]. I invited Mr Bird [Phillips' attorney] to take me to the relevant passages. In the paperwork I find assertions that Mr Monson “has caused to be made statements of fact which are untrue”; assertions that as President of the Church Mr Monson is responsible for statements of the Church; numerous assertions that Mr Monson knew false statements were being made; and assertions that Church doctrine makes the particular statements averred. It would be relatively easy to state explicitly that Mr Monson has made these specific representations, and when and how the misrepresentations were made. This has not been done.
“Even if Mr Monson has made the representations complained of, the basis for the complaint that he made them dishonestly (or intending a gain or a loss) is too tenuous. It is not sufficient to found a criminal prosecution.
“I do not accept that the essential elements of the offence are present in the information as presented to me.
“Is the prosecution vexatious?
“It is obvious that this proposed prosecution attacks the doctrine and beliefs of the Mormon Church, and is aimed at those beliefs rather than any wrong-doing of Mr Monson personally. The purpose is to use criminal proceedings to expose the false (it is said) facts on which the church is based.
“It is inevitable that the prosecution would never reach a jury, even if Mr Monson chooses to attend. To convict, a jury would need to be sure that the religious teachings of the Mormon Church are untrue or misleading. That proposition is at the heart of the case. No judge in a secular court in England and Wales would allow that issue to be put to a jury. It is non-justiciable.
“I am satisfied that the process of the court is being manipulated to provide a high-proflle forum to attack the religious beliefs of others. It is an abuse of the process of the court.”
***
After all the hype from critics of the LDS church about the lawsuit against Thomas Monson, and people jumping up and down at the thought of Mr. Monson being arrested, there is now silence about what has happened in the case recently – the case has been thrown out. Not a word from anyone who made such a big deal about the lawsuit and not a word from the sites (sites critical to the LDS church) who hyped the lawsuit.
Tom Phillips said if the jury found Mr. Monson not guilty it would have been because Mr. Monson and his attorneys will use “trickery” to get the not guilty verdict. Who used trickery on the judge to get the judge to throw the lawsuit out?