Case against President Monson dismissed

[lagarthaaz]

Are you sure? Most teenagers are pretty savvy online, and I'd hazard a guess and say that most lds teens have viewed at least one or two anti-lds websites at some point, whether intentionally or accidentally. It can be difficult to avoid them if you spent a lot of time online.

When I was 14, I could give you the names of all the well known anti-lds websites that existed at the time, simply because I was curious and loved to compare them to pro lds arguments, like on fairlds.org.

Well, he's a pretty naive and relaxed kind of kid, and not all that intellectually curious. That's why I was worried about him because he might not have the ability to sift the truth from the fibs.

[NeuroTypical]

I'm going to allow a discussion on this subject.

I sum it up like this:

Thread title: Case against President Monson dismissed

Discussion on the subject: Gee - just like every single person on the face of the earth thought it was going to be, except for the subset of church critics who set aside their brain in order to have something bad to say about mormons.

*shrug*

[prisonchaplain]

except for the subset of church critics who set aside their brain in order to have something bad to say about mormons.

*shrug*

These critics better thank God Almighty that they lost. Had they actually won--had Caesar declared the power to declare religious leaders criminally liable for alleged historic and doctrinal "misrepresentations," then the level of government scrutiny against most religions would become an established role of...oh I don't know...say the I.R.S.? The 9th Circuit? Anyone want to explain why your pastor/bishop/Overseer, etc. was preaching hate against homosexuals (and adulterers)??? Who knows how many politicians would find such teachings offensive, and encourage investigations. Some might even use it to get re-elected. For the more elderly amonst us, remember McCarthyism?

[Maureen]

...Gee - just like every single person on the face of the earth thought it was going to be, except for...

Let me guess, hyperbole? Or do you actually think there are two groups the "every single person on the face of the earth" group and the critics?

M.

[NeuroTypical]

Yes, it was a little bit of hyperbole, but please read carefully Maureen. I didn't say "the critics".

Gee - just like every single person on the face of the earth thought it was going to be, except for the subset of church critics who set aside their brain in order to have something bad to say about mormons.

Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough. Take 100 church critics. 95 of them thought this was a stupid pointless hopeless lawsuit too. From my admittedly anecdotal experience on two or three different websites, it really was that obvious to just about everybody.

[Mahone]

I sum it up like this:

Thread title: Case against President Monson dismissed

Discussion on the subject: Gee - just like every single person on the face of the earth thought it was going to be, except for the subset of church critics who set aside their brain in order to have something bad to say about mormons.

*shrug*

I doubt Tom Philips himself predicted anything but being thrown out of court.

I used to know the guy, he was previously in my stake before his divorce and subsequent departure from the church. I still see his ex-wife every now and then. He is a very intelligent man, and while I can't be certain of what he really intended to achieve from all of this, I doubt it was a successful court case. There will be an alternative motive for all of this, perhaps multiple alternative motives.

[Maureen]

Yes, it was a little bit of hyperbole, but please read carefully Maureen. I didn't say "the critics".

Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough. Take 100 church critics. 95 of them thought this was a stupid pointless hopeless lawsuit too. From my admittedly anecdotal experience on two or three different websites, it really was that obvious to just about everybody.

I agree that even critics of the LDS church thought the lawsuit wasn't going to go very far. Some even predicted it would last 10 minutes in front of the judge but from what I read the hearing lasted about 6 hours. I was more commenting on your exaggeration about every single person on the face of the earth. I would guess that there are more people on the face of the earth who have no clue who Thomas Monson and Tom Phillips are and therefore were indifferent or even ignorant of this lawsuit.

M.

[pam]

I doubt Tom Philips himself predicted anything but being thrown out of court.

I used to know the guy, he was previously in my stake before his divorce and subsequent departure from the church. I still see his ex-wife every now and then. He is a very intelligent man, and while I can't be certain of what he really intended to achieve from all of this, I doubt it was a successful court case. There will be an alternative motive for all of this, perhaps multiple alternative motives.

I was hoping that you would bring that up. I was talking with your wife a few days ago for quite some time and she told me some of the background that you were aware of. But since it was a private conversation away from this site wasn't my place to bring it up. :)

[pam]

I agree that even critics of the LDS church thought the lawsuit wasn't going to go very far. Some even predicted it would last 10 minutes in front of the judge but from what I read the hearing lasted about 6 hours. I was more commenting on your exaggeration about every single person on the face of the earth. I would guess that there are more people on the face of the earth who have no clue who Thomas Monson and Tom Phillips are and therefore were indifferent or even ignorant of this lawsuit.

M.

Isn't this being a bit nit picky? I think LM was just using a figure of speech...not literal.

[Dravin]

Note to self: Maureen must have been bitten by hyperbole as a kid or something.

[Just_A_Guy]

Meanwhile, the U of U law school's job board currently has a listing by the ACLU for a Staff Attorney for its Center for Liberty. From the listing:

The Center seeks an experienced attorney to take a leadership role on the Center’s priority of combatting current efforts to use religion to discriminate, largely through a refusal based on religion to comply with anti-discrimination laws. These efforts take many forms today. In the name of religion, businesses seek exemptions to rules requiring them to provide insurance for contraception, inns and stores claim a right to turn away customers based on their sexual orientation, schools assert a right to fire pregnant women if they are unmarried, religiously affiliated entities receiving government grants assert a right to discriminate in hiring, and medical professions advocate for the right to deny referrals and care. The bundle of issues is often referred to as religious refusals.

[Maureen]

Isn't this being a bit nit picky? I think LM was just using a figure of speech...not literal.

And as you can read in my first post to LM, you would see that that's what I suspected in the first place.

M.

[NeuroTypical]

Maureen asked, I copped to it and clarified the rest. I think we're all good, aren't we Maureen?

[Maureen]

Maureen asked, I copped to it and clarified the rest. I think we're all good, aren't we Maureen?

Yes we are. :)

M.