Sealings?

[Jenda]

But, as Bradley pointed out, there were at least 4 factions using the original name. It was ambiguous to say the least. And if the judge accepted it on that merit, I don't think that it is a valid point. (Meaning that that was not the reason that it was thrown out of court.)

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda@Apr 12 2005, 06:35 PM

But, as Bradley pointed out, there were at least 4 factions using the original name. It was ambiguous to say the least. And if the judge accepted it on that merit, I don't think that it is a valid point. (Meaning that that was not the reason that it was thrown out of court.)

Dawn,

I know you respect Bradley...heck, I do! But, he is not a lawyer....and he is cherrypicking what it is he wants to actually present in his posts.

He is missing the entire point of the book. If you will notice...all of his comments are his opinion on the conclusions drawn by Mr. Reimann. He has been unable to refute any of his conclusions based upon the law.

Listen...the book is exhaustive. Bradley just briefly mentioned about JSIII being the "Trustee-in-Trust". This issue is complicated and lengthy and is gone over extensively in the book. He also has not addressed the fact that the LDS church was not a defendant in the case. The RLDS attorneys attempted to make it appear so...but it was not. The tactics used at the time were illegal for the many points that are shown and which Bradley fails to point out.

Going back to the issue of the RLDS choosing to use "coined phrases" is because they tried to "piggyback" the issue of succession along with the "ownership of the Temple" case. They had to try to paint the picture that the original church had somehow became "disorganized" and in effect..."ceased to exist".

Like I had mentioned, and as Mr. Reimann goes into detail about....if the official name of the Church had been used in the official pleading of the case...the RLDS church's case would have been fatally flawed at the outset. Actually, as Mr. Reimann points out numerous times by numerous ways...the case WAS fatally flawed from the outset. The fact that the original "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" as an institution went west with the official records, history, and acknowledged leadership and assets of the original church....it would have been a no brainer for any judge to be able to rule that said church was neither "disorganized" or that it had "ceased to exist" thereby needing some sort of "reorganization".

Bradley mentions that it is obvious that Mr. Reimann didnt like the outcome of the case as it was decided by Judge Sherman. Actually, it could be said that Bradley simply doesnt like the conclusions that an experienced lawyer, whose speciality was in real Estate litigation...and who examined these two cases extensively....was able to show beyond any doubt that the RLDS church LOST both cases and NOT for the reasons that have been traditionally given by the RLDS church.

No..Bradley could not give the book anywhere close to an honest review because of the obvious implications.

Dawn, is there a way that you can post some emails from me addressing these issues on the Center Place board....or do you feel you cant or should not do it?

Let me know...thanks.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Apr 12 2005, 09:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Apr 12 2005, 09:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Apr 12 2005, 06:35 PM

But, as Bradley pointed out, there were at least 4 factions using the original name.  It was ambiguous to say the least.  And if the judge accepted it on that merit, I don't think that it is a valid point.  (Meaning that that was not the reason that it was thrown out of court.)

Dawn,

I know you respect Bradley...heck, I do! But, he is not a lawyer....and he is cherrypicking what it is he wants to actually present in his posts.

He is missing the entire point of the book. If you will notice...all of his comments are his opinion on the conclusions drawn by Mr. Reimann. He has been unable to refute any of his conclusions based upon the law.

Listen...the book is exhaustive. Bradley just briefly mentioned about JSIII being the "Trustee-in-Trust". This issue is complicated and lengthy and is gone over extensively in the book. He also has not addressed the fact that the LDS church was not a defendant in the case. The RLDS attorneys attempted to make it appear so...but it was not. The tactics used at the time were illegal for the many points that are shown and which Bradley fails to point out.

Going back to the issue of the RLDS choosing to use "coined phrases" is because they tried to "piggyback" the issue of succession along with the "ownership of the Temple" case. They had to try to paint the picture that the original church had somehow became "disorganized" and in effect..."ceased to exist".

Like I had mentioned, and as Mr. Reimann goes into detail about....if the official name of the Church had been used in the official pleading of the case...the RLDS church's case would have been fatally flawed at the outset. Actually, as Mr. Reimann points out numerous times by numerous ways...the case WAS fatally flawed from the outset. The fact that the original "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" as an institution went west with the official records, history, and acknowledged leadership and assets of the original church....it would have been a no brainer for any judge to be able to rule that said church was neither "disorganized" or that it had "ceased to exist" thereby needing some sort of "reorganization".

Bradley mentions that it is obvious that Mr. Reimann didnt like the outcome of the case as it was decided by Judge Sherman. Actually, it could be said that Bradley simply doesnt like the conclusions that an experienced lawyer, whose speciality was in real Estate litigation...and who examined these two cases extensively....was able to show beyond any doubt that the RLDS church LOST both cases and NOT for the reasons that have been traditionally given by the RLDS church.

No..Bradley could not give the book anywhere close to an honest review because of the obvious implications.

Dawn, is there a way that you can post some emails from me addressing these issues on the Center Place board....or do you feel you cant or should not do it?

Let me know...thanks.

I would feel that I would have to email Mike Palmer and ask him about it. I was already banned and unbanned when a girl from another board brought a discussion from that other board to Centerplace, though I explained to her that I was not going to discuss it there. We were both banned because of that interchange, but my ban was lifted because Mike felt I was goaded into having to defend myself. He did tell me to be more scrupulous in the future. So ............... If you want me to ask him, I will, but I will abide by his decision.

I might add here, though, that there were no conclusions in that book because it was not based on precidents to the case, it was based on what happened after it, which makes those "conclusions" moot.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Apr 12 2005, 10:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Apr 12 2005, 10:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Apr 12 2005, 09:19 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Apr 12 2005, 06:35 PM

But, as Bradley pointed out, there were at least 4 factions using the original name.  It was ambiguous to say the least.  And if the judge accepted it on that merit, I don't think that it is a valid point.  (Meaning that that was not the reason that it was thrown out of court.)

Dawn,

I know you respect Bradley...heck, I do! But, he is not a lawyer....and he is cherrypicking what it is he wants to actually present in his posts.

He is missing the entire point of the book. If you will notice...all of his comments are his opinion on the conclusions drawn by Mr. Reimann. He has been unable to refute any of his conclusions based upon the law.

Listen...the book is exhaustive. Bradley just briefly mentioned about JSIII being the "Trustee-in-Trust". This issue is complicated and lengthy and is gone over extensively in the book. He also has not addressed the fact that the LDS church was not a defendant in the case. The RLDS attorneys attempted to make it appear so...but it was not. The tactics used at the time were illegal for the many points that are shown and which Bradley fails to point out.

Going back to the issue of the RLDS choosing to use "coined phrases" is because they tried to "piggyback" the issue of succession along with the "ownership of the Temple" case. They had to try to paint the picture that the original church had somehow became "disorganized" and in effect..."ceased to exist".

Like I had mentioned, and as Mr. Reimann goes into detail about....if the official name of the Church had been used in the official pleading of the case...the RLDS church's case would have been fatally flawed at the outset. Actually, as Mr. Reimann points out numerous times by numerous ways...the case WAS fatally flawed from the outset. The fact that the original "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" as an institution went west with the official records, history, and acknowledged leadership and assets of the original church....it would have been a no brainer for any judge to be able to rule that said church was neither "disorganized" or that it had "ceased to exist" thereby needing some sort of "reorganization".

Bradley mentions that it is obvious that Mr. Reimann didnt like the outcome of the case as it was decided by Judge Sherman. Actually, it could be said that Bradley simply doesnt like the conclusions that an experienced lawyer, whose speciality was in real Estate litigation...and who examined these two cases extensively....was able to show beyond any doubt that the RLDS church LOST both cases and NOT for the reasons that have been traditionally given by the RLDS church.

No..Bradley could not give the book anywhere close to an honest review because of the obvious implications.

Dawn, is there a way that you can post some emails from me addressing these issues on the Center Place board....or do you feel you cant or should not do it?

Let me know...thanks.

I would feel that I would have to email Mike Palmer and ask him about it. I was already banned and unbanned when a girl from another board brought a discussion from that other board to Centerplace, though I explained to her that I was not going to discuss it there. We were both banned because of that interchange, but my ban was lifted because Mike felt I was goaded into having to defend myself. He did tell me to be more scrupulous in the future. So ............... If you want me to ask him, I will, but I will abide by his decision.

I might add here, though, that there were no conclusions in that book because it was not based on precidents to the case, it was based on what happened after it, which makes those "conclusions" moot.

Dawn,

So you are saying now that you have read the book? I thought you said you had not, but that you could still judge it's credibility etc etc.

I dont believe you have read it...you are simply taking Bradley's word for it....in this you are making a serious error.

The court cases he sited were to show a basis for one aspect of the case....NOT for the entire case. You see...this is where a group of people just cast their lots with a couple of people...ie; Richard Price/Bradley Barnhart....then everyone feels content to let them do the legwork and accept whatever conclusions they draw from it.

This is not good.

There are so MANY aspects of both of those cases that are gone into and discussed at length. Any one of which could prove and show conclusively that the case was thrown out of court, and NOT simply "abandoned" because it was "quicker and cheaper" for the RLDS church to go that route. NO! That has been the mantra and traditional position of the RLDS church for all of these decades...and it is simply not true!!

Yes....ask Mike if you can do that for me! Thanks!

[begood2]

Writer-Chick,

Now I know where you get some of your wisdom and compassion for others. You seem to have a very loving and caring mother.

(The poor boy has been placed 7 times in less than 5 years.) I think that God placed the little boy in your home for that reason!

I don't know if your mom can be sealed to him but IMO, God wants us to be happy in Heaven. I think that such a just, compassionate and omnipoent God would be more than willing to reward this caring family the joy of being united together in Heaven.

I'm sure that God will bestow a great many blessings on your family for opening your home and your compassionate hearts to one of his little vulnerable ones.

In a perfect world there wouldn't be ( what some see as unwanted, throwaway children), but since we don't live in a perfect world ... it is very inspiring to see a family willing to accept the personal sacrifices necessary to open their hearts and home and care for these children.

May God bless you and your family!

[Writer_Chick1213]

Writer-Chick,

Now I know where you get some of your wisdom and compassion for others. You seem to have a very loving and caring mother.

(The poor boy has been placed 7 times in less than 5 years.) I think that God placed the little boy in your home for that reason!

I don't know if your mom can be sealed to him but IMO, God wants us to be happy in Heaven. I think that such a just, compassionate and omnipoent God would be more than willing to reward this caring family the joy of being united together in Heaven.

I'm sure that God will bestow a great many blessings on your family for opening your home and your compassionate hearts to one of his little vulnerable ones.

In a perfect world there wouldn't be ( what some see as unwanted, throwaway children), but since we don't live in a perfect world ... it is very inspiring to see a family willing to accept the personal sacrifices necessary to open their hearts and home and care for these children.

May God bless you and your family! 

begood2:

Thank you very much for your kind words. I do have a wonderfully loving mother, who tries her best to live the gospel and raise her children in righteousness. Its comforting to think that this little boy is supposed to be in our family and sent to us for a reason, instead of us being a last resort for him.

I want to thank all of you for your opinions and information on the matter, after much study and prayer i've come to the conclusion that such things don't have to be worried about in this life. God is merciful and wants his children to be happy so I can't see him denying us happiness as a family. Instead of worrying about this, I've decided to just live every day that we have with this wonderful little boy to the fullest and show him as much love as possible. We'll focus on striving to be worthy to be a celestial family and leave the rest up to the Lord. I'm reminded of a scripture mastery from seminary:

Proverbs 3:5-6

5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

I think that pretty much says it all. Its one of my favorite scripture masterys and not just because it was short and easy to memorize.

[begood2]

Writer Chick,

I like the passage too. Best regards to you and your family!