As likely the whole world knows, this case was withdrawn (or in other words dismissed) last week. I have had one or two comments criticising me over not putting anything up over this, so I thought I would pull a couple of things together.
It is generally seen as a victory by the LDS faithful that this case has been withdrawn. However its interesting looking at the blog of one of the complainants Steve Bloor some of what this has achieved. (for the full post see here)
1. Beliefs should no longer be considered facts
2. Priesthood Leaders not needed to represent the Lord’s Church, instead lawyers who make pronouncements on behalf of the Church.
3. One more step to having true freedom of, & from, religion
4. Tithing is voluntary and optional
5. Catalyst For Change
Lawyers in this case insisted that tithing is optional in the Mormon Church. that is interesting to me as I have seen LDS members denying this to be the case as they all know that tithing is essential to enter the temple which is essential to exaltation. So therefore what is being said is: “tithing is optional unless Mormons actually want to be with their families forever”. This is interesting and when you think about it, and it is not really a true statement to say that tithing is optional.
The other points are picked up on more on Steve’s post. I think I ultimately agree with the thoughts of many other Christians that this may have opened a dangerous door for other faiths had it gone the full distance, however either way this has pointed out the fact that for years the Mormon church especially through its young missionaries has not been very open at all about its beliefs and history.
Is it a coincidence that the LDS church has, through various articles on their site started talking about their history and beliefs? I am not sure.
Chris Ralph one of the complainants in this case has said this:
It is most enlightening to observe how swift some are to judge matters about which they understand so very little. They do so simply because they identify with a tribe. “The Tribe” rather than “The Truth” is what matters the most to them, or so it appears.
The summonses, (one of which mentioned me as a victim), were withdrawn on Thursday 20th March due to technicalities in the legal process which need to be addressed. This has been proclaimed a massive victory, despite the fact that it says nothing concerning the truth or otherwise of the actual allegations, which, of course, have yet to be heard and tested. It is, in effect, a gagging order for the time being, and nothing more.
One would think that an organisation which proclaimed itself to be “the only true church” would be eager to demonstrate the truthfulness of that lofty claim by answering questions about its history, rather than avoiding them, but not so apparently. It is easier for those at the helm to hide behind expensive lawyers, and legal technicalities, and not have to answer anything. Their tribal newspapers then spin this somehow into a victory, and the followers rejoice.
The mantra begins: “No unhallowed hands can stop this work”, etc.
Perhaps so, but I will only say this to my friends: I have scrutinized my hands once more this morning, (I do so daily), and am able to report that they are still hallowed. The questions still require answers.
This was an opportunity for Mormon Leaders to proudly uphold their beliefs and history and they by no means took the opportunity. This reminds me of the Apostle Paul defending himself in court in Acts, proclaiming the gospel and even being met with this response.
Acts 20:
24 And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.” 25 But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. 26 For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” 28 And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?”[b]29 And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”
Imagine if LDS leaders had been so bold!
I think the goal of this case is far from over. As I said on my 3rd post on the matter the goal of this site is to bring LDS people and all others to a saving faith in Christ, therefore I will not be covering this point by point, however here and there I will put some updates on about where this is going,.
From the Judgement of Judge Riddle Page 2
“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. ”
In other words, as has been pointed out elsewhere Thomas S Monson, since becoming Prophet has not once, declared his testimony that the church is true.
Specifically in this case, that the Book of Abraham is an accurate translation, that the Book of Mormon is Historical fact, that the Lamenites are the ancestors of the indigenous Americans, The Joseph and Hyrum were martyrs, that the book of genesis is literal history, or that Adam and Eve are the primordial parents of everyone alive today.
One has to ask WHY?
Who advised him to stay silent on these matters since 2005? (coincidentally the same year the new fraud acts were passing through both the UK and USA legislature)
Who advised him that attending a Basketball game was more important than defending the church he “loves” in court, in his capacity as God’s “one true Prophet” of the “one true church” in this dispensation?
Who advised him that had he stood up in court and declared the truth of the points mentioned in the summons as being actual facts and not beliefs, he would have been liable to have had to defend those claim in a crown court under oath?
Who advised him that a six man team of non Mormons lawyers who could not even get the name of the church correct, were equally qualified and called by the Lord to speak on behalf of the church, as was the prophet or any of the Apostles?
Bobby, Don’t you think describing this case as being “withdrawn” is disingenuous when Judge’s ruling states, “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….I am satisfied that the process of the court is being manipulated (by Tom Phillips et al) to provide a high-profile forum to attack the religious beliefs of others,”
In response to your numbered statements:
1) “Beliefs should no longer be considered facts”: I haven’t seen any public transcripts of the legal proceeding that led to this case being thrown out or to your first statement. I have seen an anonymous summary of one claiming to have been present who was obviously, by the tone and focus of the summary, a supporter of the private prosecutors. Do you have a link to the transcript of the proceedings? Either way, legal matters and terminologies are distinct as your use of the word “withdrawn” demonstrates.
2) This was a legal proceeding, not an ecclesiastical proceeding, thus requiring the use of lawyers appropriately credentialed in this area of law within the Commonwealth. There is an ecclesiastical proceeding occurring over the next couple of weeks where many of the priesthood will be speaking very publicly about Mormon beliefs and it is open to the public through the internet: https://www.lds.org/general-conference?lang=eng
3) The judge’s ruling throwing out this case is a blessing to all religions, most especially Christianity. The Judge’s ruling preserves religious freedom for all Christians throughout the Commonwealth for the moment, but as Tom Phillips, the self-proclaimed Atheist has stated, “My legal team will leave no stone unturned”
4) Tithing IS voluntary. No member will lose membership in the Church for not paying tithing or not be allowed to fully participate in Sunday meetings or other standard activities. Tithing is required, along with other specific requirements, for entrance into a Temple. Members who haven’t paid tithing in the past are not required to pay tithing in arrears to enter the Temple. Tithing is a well established biblical teaching, as are the other requirements for entering the Temple.
5) I hope this is a “catalyst” for change. I hope Tom Phillips and other like minded people will refocus their time, talents and resources and work collaboratively with the faith community and others on more constructive and productive endeavors for the benefit of the greater good of society as Tom Phillips used to do.
In response to Chris, the church and its leaders teach the doctrines of the LDS Church everyday in public, in private, and in every other venue where they are inspired and directed to do so. I don’t know why, for certain, your private criminal prosecutions with its “false” threats of arrest didn’t inspire them to personally attend your private prosecution, but I do know they have been inspired to speak to the world over the next couple of weeks and you and everyone else in the world are invited to watch and hopefully see: https://www.lds.org/general-conference?lang=eng
Bobby, Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to your posts.
Thanks Michael your always welcome to comment, I think Henry gave a great response there so I have nothing to add.
Michael, thank you for your comments. I think there are some questions that believing LDS should think about.
1) Why does the LDS encourage this kind of campaigning from individuals?
2) How are LDS primary lessons, New Era articles and various conference talks viewed by non LDS members. Would they appear as suggesting tithing is voluntary?
3) Why is it such a big issue when someone leaves the LDS church for family members (due to difficulty with church history) compared to other main stream religions like Catholic, C of E and Methodists (Protestant)
4) Why are there so many support groups for people leaving the LDS compared to other religions.
5) How can we all as human beings find a way a way to resolve the issues with believing LDS and Ex Mormons. So that each do not see the other as the enemy.
Michael – I am still a Christian but that is not acceptable to some of my LDS family. Not one would come to my confirmation. I would really appreciate your thoughts on these questions. I am very tired of all the hurt that is going on for both sides. Since leaving the church our family relationships on both sides have been ripped apart. Perhaps you can – on the inside of the community – communicate my pain and wish for love, acceptance and religious tolerance for my new beliefs.
I am sincerely happy for you that the LDS church works. I understand why members feel attacked by the court case. There are two sides to this story. This only solution is for us both to try and understand the other.
With very best wishes, Karen
Karen, thanks for your post. You make a very good point which I take to be that there is some difference between member perceptions and beliefs in the ground and what is presented as actual Mormon belief and practice. You mention tithing. It was mentioned that it is voluntary and that a person need only pay if they want to go to the Temple but in practice Mormons sing about going to the Temple have lessons about the importance of going to the temple and have talks in church about going. The and is true about tithing. These are not presented and discussed as options but as goals, aspirations and Ben requirements in our eternal progression. So, intellectually tithing is viewed as required. It is also required emotionally or socially. If one isn’t paying one is different from everyone who is doing the Mormon life right. What’s more most anyone laying attention will know. All the members of the Bishopric will know, the ward financial clerk will know and at least the Stake President will know if not more frequently but a least annually. But regular ward members will know. Most ward leadership and other callings are reserved for tithe payers. You can’t be in the EQP unless you are a tithe payer. Ward clerks are also tithe payers. You can teach many classes and not be a tithe payer. Over time, ones church career potentially reveals one’s tithing status. As the leadership changes in the unit, one’s status becomes known to a wider group of people. So the social or emotional pressure can mount to where one feels that paying is not optional. However, in short, other than on a blog in the last few months have I ever heard paying tithing is optional. Anyone who says that is not exactly being untruthful but has to ignore the “lay of the land” to say so.
Michael the use of the word withdrawn in this context is not disingenuous it is the correct legal term.
The Lawyers representing Mr. Monson stated, as reported by at least five different, none of them anonymous, sources present in the court at the time, that one of the major lines of defence was that the points contested in the initial summons were NOT facts, but beliefs. This was repeated at least three times, to emphasise a belief cannot be held to fraudulent because it is a matter of faith not fact.
Court transcripts I understand will be made available soon.
This was a legal proceeding and yes lawyers were engaged since Mr. Monson was both unwilling and unable to attend. Indeed he had a prior engagement to attend a highly important Basketball game on that day, and is pictured doing so in several American journals.
His lawyers were empowered to speak and present his defence on his behalf.
Judge Riddle’s ruling “Withdrawing” the case (there is no such legal term as “ throwing out this case” is irrelevant to most Christian sects and denominations as most of them do not contend that the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham are scriptural and most do not contend that genesis is historical. They certainly don’t hold that Joseph and Hyrum Smith were Martyred.
Tithing is only voluntary in so far as you don’t have to pay it if you do not want to fully participate in church matters as a member in good standing, be considered worthy to go to the temple, have a celestial marriage and so after death enter the Celestial kingdom along with all those you are sealed to, with a view to becoming as God is now. You will not be excommunicated for not tithing but you will be made aware of the eternal and earthly consequences of not doing so and be held back from much of what being a Mormon actually means.
As to being a catalyst for change, this case already has been that, many LDS are on and off the net are questioning why the church could not send a member of the first presidency or the quorum of the twelve apostles to represent the prophet in court. Mr. Monson apparently was too ill to attend an actual court but not a basketball one so instead decided to rely completely and solely on non-lds legal representation.
God’s chosen seem to have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
Henry,
1) I don’t want to belabor the point, but the definition of disingenuous is, “not candid or sincere” Chris Ralph is quoted stating, “The summonses were withdrawn on Thursday 20th March due to technicalities in the legal process which need to be addressed” while the judge who ruled in the case stated, “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….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,” I guess “technically” the judge “withdrew” the case declaring it “an abuse of the process of the court.”
2) Tom Phillips did NOT attend, but he did seek to coerce President Monson to attend his private prosecution with the threat of arrest that the ruling Judge described as “wrong.” I know Tom is an Atheist, but to the Christians praising his private prosecution efforts-these actions taken by Tom Phillips are not actions that are taught in the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew 5:43-48). President Monson defended himself appropriately against this private prosecution by sending those with the required credentials, knowledgeable about this specialized area of the law in the Commonwealth to argue the legalities of the private prosecution and apparently they did a well enough job to have the case thrown out with a stern rebuke from the Judge against the private prosecutors..
3) I will wait to see the public transcript before commenting on what was allegedly said in the courtroom. Please post it as soon as you get it.
4) If you read the actual summons, you will see two alleged fraudulent beliefs that could apply to many Christian churches. If Tom Phillips had been successful, as Bobby has stated, “may have opened a dangerous door for other faiths had it gone the full distance.” the ruling Judge certainly thought so.
I am aware of the summons and was sent copies of both on the day of issue as I am personally aquainted with both Steven and Chris.
Very few Chrisitian churches hold it as doctrinal that the world is 6000 years old, even less that the Genesis story is historical and as far as I am aware only the LDS hold that there was no death before the fall of Adam.
I assume these are the items you are refering to.
The Anglican church, the RC and the Methodists certain do not. A few fringe born again churches do hold these matters to be doctrinal fact as do a few individuals from many faiths even in the face of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, but do not make those belief obligatory in order to gain entrance to the temple, wherein those same belief are taught again in order to prepare “worthy” Mormon for the “Ordinaces” in order to enter Heaven, so no the ruling would still be of no consiquence to the vast majority of Chrisitians had it proceeded as most faith do no extort money out of their congregation in order to have them feel they need to buy an entrance in to God’s presence.
Henry, go back and read the summons. President Monson was being accused of making representations that were or might be untrue or misleading in order to “induce” (persuade) Chris and Stephen to pay tithing, for the purpose of getting gain or causing a loss to Christ and Stephen. Then the 7 alleged misrepresentation were listed.
Every Christian Church utilizes some form of “inducing” to collect contributions/tithe. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/the-church-of-englands-general-synod-carey-suggests-10-tithe-from-rich-anglicans-1533072.html) If this private prosecution had been successful, it would have become a template for Tom Phillips or others to privately prosecute every other Christian church that “induces” (persuades) its members to make contributions/tithe. The only difference would be the listing of alleged “misrepresentations.” For example, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Jesus… and the list goes on.
Incidentall in reading the judgement again I note that Judge Riddle bases much of the decision to withdraw the summonses on his acceptance of the proposition that the matters under consideration are not facts but are beliefs, as pointed out by the LDS council.
Michael please, drawing a parallel between the virgin birth (quite feasibly artificial insemination) The resurrection (all four gospels give a clear indication Jesus was drugged to save him while on the cross by soured wine on a sponge) and Joe Smith sitting with his head in Hat telling people he was translating from a set of Golden plates that were not even in the room vias a seer stone, or writing a translation dictionary from an Egyptian funeral scroll which still exists and is proven 100% wrong, then making up a work of fantasy from those translations and claiming them to be a whole new divine cosmology, is stretching credibility even for someone who thinks The Flintstones is an accurate representation of the stone age.
One point to keep in mind is that the first Judge, Roscoe, thoroughly examined Tom’s summons and even had him come in to answer some of her concerns as to “frivolously attacking a religion”, (which is her job, having done this job for some 20 years) and determined the case had merit. It’s my understanding that she re wrote (perfected) the original summons submitted by Tom Phillips.
Along comes the 2nd Judge, who’s legal position was/is equal to that of Judge Roscoe and finds completely opposite to Roscoe.
VERY strange.
Could it be that Orrin Hatch intervened and threw his weight around…or perhaps the LDS PR department found a way to “get to” the 2nd Judge? Or it could be the result of some worried Christian (Anglican?) group who lobbied the Judge or otherwise put pressure on him,
I honestly don’t know.
All I know is something strange happened that we are not privy to–to cause one Magistrate to roll so completely over another Magistrate’s findings so blatantly. Someone needs to interview Judge Roscoe to try to get to the bottom of this departure from legal protocol.
Either way, Tom Phillips has declared that he’s not done with this issue and that he has/had other alternatives as a plan “B”, “C”, “D”. etc. This was only round one.
Dane, Wasn’t it Tom Phillips who made the claim that the first Judge actually assisted him in writing up the summons in such a way so that she could justify issuing the summons? From a US legal perspective, it seems strange, maybe even inappropriate or unethical for a Judge to write up a complaint on behalf of another that the Judge would then make a decision about. Maybe it’s different in the UK, but that really seems like a conflict of interest to me. What are your thoughts?
Karen:
1) “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” Mark 16:15
2) Tithing is a biblical teaching and taught throughout Christianity.
3) I don’t know the full answer to that question. The Church provides a great deal of opportunities to teach, to learn, to socialize, to participate in edifying and enriching experiences , etc. and I think that the loss of all of that is felt.
4) same as 3. Because of the cohesiveness that Church activity and teachings provide (ie. eternal families), some family members may see it as a personal rejection, but this is not the teaching or the desire of the Church.
5) Amen – love the question. As active Mormons, we are taught to hold no ill feeling towards any who leave and we continue to reach out and invite to social activities or any other activities where the individual will feel comfortable.
I think all Christians need, more than ever to support one another. We know we have differences, but we have so much more in common and of such great value. History discredits all of us, while Christ raises us up. Always hopeful :-)
Mormons are not taught to “continue to reach out ” to former members. In fact they are encouraged to avoid them, in case they “Damage their testimony”
It is a standard question in the Temple worthiness interview to demand to know if the applicant associates with “Apostates” the answer is expected to be a resounding NO!
Shunning is real, and there is plenty of evidence for it, look at any ex-Mormon support sight, including this one and you will find nightmare stories of mental cruelty and viscous uncaring behavior,
Henry,
1) I have sat in countless Ward Councils (monthly meetings with organizational leaders of the local congregation) dedicated to efforts of reaching out. Through Home Teaching and Visiting Teaching, each adult member assigned in pairs, visit a list of individuals to reach out to, some active and others not. Bishoprics often dedicate time aside specifically to reach out to disaffected members. Never are we told to avoid anyone except in the case when that individual has specifically requested that we not visit them or reach out to them.
2) The question in the Temple recommend interview has to do with actively supporting individuals or groups in their efforts to propagate teachings or practices that are contrary or against the teachings of the Church. The word “apostate” isn’t even mentioned. This does not include efforts of reaching out.
3) There is NO policy of “shunning” in the Church. There is a continual policy of reaching out.
Henry, you are welcomed to attend our Sunday meeting anytime – i would love to meet you.
Michael – I am hopeful too. I think many are hurting on all sides. Attacks are merely a manifestation of these pains. As a resigned member (name removed) from the LDS I did say the closing prayer, in a stake house, at a funeral. I always try to ‘redefine the term apostate’. ‘Is it more important to prove I am right or that I love you’ was said by my father in law at my wedding (unfortunately we no longer speak) the words are wise but hard to put into practice. I like the Covey You Tube video on Paradigm. He was LDS, I think you’d like it. We need to find a third way in all of this. It’s deeply sad seeing people who once served with one another in callings, sat with each other, were named as guardians on wills, fight over these things. Everyone needs to show courage. It is my hope and prayer that they can.
Thank you for your reply. Just a thought. I don’t agree that God requires actual physical cash for tithing. I think the spirit of the law is better in my own case, I also respect people that feel they are not expected to give anything. I respect you see otherwise. I do voluntary work in my local school and also for a national charity to the value of my tithing. That way I participate and see joy in the gift I am giving. This brings more peace to me than previously giving money. I also feel that faith is a deeply personal thing and all needs to come up with their own belief system in line with their personal integrity. I am a religious pluralist as well as Christian, that way my God also recognises the faiths of the East and any sincere truth seeker.
all the best in your journey. I wish you joy in it also. Karen
Bobby, Thanks for the addition of “(in other words dismissed)” after “withdrawn” :-)
Bobby – I have decided to leave this site. I think I really do need to move on from Mormonism. Good luck with all that you do. I think only time will sort this situation. Everyone has their own journey to follow. I just need to focus on what I need to do. I hope you can help in this difficult situation. Best wishes.
No problem thanks for dropping in Karen, feel free to get In touch anytime.
Sent from my iPhone
>
No problem, I am happy to disagree and all that but am not seeking to give the impression of falsely stating facts.
Henry I am still with you on what you said there however am just trying to be fair in what I am stating.
Michael, I too have been an active Mormon, a stake missionary and ran the “Lost sheep” program in my stake(which was a farce aimed only at recovering inactive formerly high tithe paying members, not apostates.). I have attended Worthiness interviews and do not appreciate your false representations and the inference that I am a liar.The question was and as far as I know still is asked in temple worthiness interviews.
When I left the church many of my friends informed me that they could not understand why the bishop and the stake president had told them to stop associating with me as I was a danger to their testimonies, even my wife was advised to be careful in talking to me on matters relating to the LDS, not surprisingly some including my wife followed me out on the strength of it.
Shunning is practiced, maybe not “officially” but it is, to the extent that I am aware of it as the cause of at least three divorces and the estrangement of several families.
So though I may be welcome to attend your Sunday meetings and I appreciate the invitation if sincerely given, I am afraid you could not pay me to do so, I am well out of the LDS and the more people I can encourage to do the same, or to never become involved in the first place the better I feel about it.
My own experience in leaving the LDS has shown me that the love brought to the pulpit from the District President via the district councillors is only words. Like all the other love from the leaders. Since I last attended church in September 2012, not one of these people who all live within walking distance of my house has called in to see me. Mormonism may not officially shun but the result is the same. Local results may vary recognising the church is staffed with volunteers locally. At the root of the issue is chauvinism. Mormonism is the absolute truth and dedication to the corporat body as true is required and fostered in each fast and testimony meeting. This leads to bigotry within families. My own children mock my attendance at the Anglican Church. This all comes from the absolute claim of total truth in Mormonism and the utter falsehood of any other church.
Henry, I am sincerely sorry for your experience. I wasn’t trying to infer you are a liar, just clarifying for accuracy sake, It sounds like you’ve been out of the Church for some time and over time, especially with what you’ve gone through, memory of precise words may fade. I have been in local leadership positions at the Ward and Stake level for 20+ years and I have never witnessed a church leader encourage anyone to be shunned. I have been involved in many disciplinary councils and there is always an overwhelming desire from leadership to reach out and offer friendship and support no matter the outcome. I’ve also never witnessed tithing being used as a criteria in determining who to reach out to. In fact, we go above and beyond to reach out to active and inactive members who may be in need of temporal assistance, especially where children are involved. Maybe attending in a different area would be a refreshing experience for you? I live in Texas now and California before. If I can be of any assistance, i genuinely would be glad to help.
Michael, I too am sorry that you continue to feel I am the one misleading people about the churches policy on Shunning, to make one last and hopefully definitive point on the matter, look at any copy of the Deseret News up until the late 1950’s published in and for Utah Mormons and you will see on the FRONT page a regular “news item” column listing the full names and partial addresses,of ex-members along with their date of leaving or excommunication. This was done in a name and shame feature informing members in good standing of who these menaces to their testimony. were and where they came from so they could be publicly ostracized.
It took a legal case to put an end to this “public Service” but all past copies are available on microfilm on request from the then church owned news paper’s archive.
Since my memory maybe failing me I have consulted with two ex-Bishops on the worthiness interview, one of who has only been out of the church a matter of months and who left while still a serving bishop.
I am reliably informed The question asked in worthiness interviews is usually put forward in the “Church Handbook of Instructions Book 1 Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics” is as follows
“Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?”
If you ask the Bishop or stake president to elaborate on this they will explain it as meaning sympathy for or with any apostate, excommunicate, anti-Mormon or ex-Mormon support organisation for the same.
In simple terms then to paraphrase the book of Mormon introduction and the D&C since “all others are an abomination in the sight of the Lord” the question asks do you only affiliate and associate with Mormons in good standing or those who agree with them and askew all others?
I think this clarifies the matter once and for all.
Henry, There is no policy on “shunning” in the Church. I don’t know about before the 1950″s, but there certainly hasn’t been for the 34+ years I’ve been a member. FYI – I looked through the 2010 Handbook 1 you referenced and do not find the temple recommend questions. Do you have a page number you can reference?
Of course I cannot give you a page number and if you legitimately have a copy the Handbook of instructions you know full well why not. If you do have a copy and you don’t know why not then your claim to have been in church leadership positions is false, which would explain why you don’t know the temple recommend questions either.
This being the case continuing a dialogue with you is a pointless exercise, I’ve already facilitated your embarrassing yourself quite enough.