At an LDS Church Court:

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexanKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TexanKnight

Guest
A man was accused of adultery. He was called before a Church Court. He was was told he was accused of being with a woman, not his wife, on a certain date. He was asked if it was true.

He said no. He said that, on that date, he was with a male friend in a park. He said they talked about religious corruption.

A witness called up. He was the scribe of the accused. He said that the meeting in the park actually occurred a year earlier. He said the accused was NOT with a friend, but two specific people were there and lots of other folks were in the group. They discussed sins.

But then the scribe said that, actually, the accused said that no specific people were there, just a bunch of other people, and that no specific thing was discussed.

But then another witness was questioned and said that yes, the meeting happened in the park about the time of the scribe’s first testimony. But that only two other people were there and they both looked alike. The subject discussed was that churches were in error.

But then a reporter testified. He said that two other people were present. He said that what was discussed was wondering if sins could be forgiven and that all churches must be in error.

But then a witness showed up with a diary of the accused. Said only two other folks were present, but they did not look alike. In fact, one had blue eyes.

The Church Court took a vote. Because the accused had so many versions of what happened, they had no choice but to find that the accused had lied and they excommunicated him.

It was a sad day.
 
Lots of versions of the same event.

Hard to imagine anyone putting their faith in so many different *versions *of one event.
 
yes…and all the versions came from js…what he said to others or wrote in his diary.

Amazing, really
 
This is just my personal opinion, Is this true, is this happening? Hard to believe this. Are you referring to the Catholic Church? And this guy is excommunicated because he had an affair and told lies? Remember Jesus Christ came for us sinners and He died due to our sins therefore Jesus Christ is forgiving, love, compassion, and full of mercy so Jesus Christ absolutely pardons this guy and this is not His teaching to excommunicate sinners but only Love the sinners and forgive many times over. It says love the sinner and hate the sin. Am sorry I will not buy this story because this is not the Catholic way of teaching to excommunicate those who committed sins.
 
malou1 said:
This is just my personal opinion, Is this true, is this happening? Hard to believe this. Are you referring to the Catholic Church? And this guy is excommunicated because he had an affair and told lies? Remember Jesus Christ came for us sinners and He died due to our sins therefore Jesus Christ is forgiving, love, compassion, and full of mercy so Jesus Christ absolutely pardons this guy and this is not His teaching to excommunicate sinners but only Love the sinners and forgive many times over. It says love the sinner and hate the sin. Am sorry I will not buy this story because this is not the Catholic way of teaching to excommunicate those who committed sins.
Click to expand...
Not to sound snarky, but read the subject line of this thread. It’s talking about the LDS church (Church of Latter Day Saints, or Mormons).🙂
 
Ah okay so sorry thanks for this correction. I didn’t know what LDS means now I know. That’s why I asked from the very beginning. So sorry and thanks again. God Bless!!!
 
Hmm, can I be devil’s advocate for a moment?

Eyewitness testimony is actually considered pretty unreliable in court, as I understand it. People tend to focus on main points and remember peripheral details unclearly. Discrepancies in the peripheral details do not necessary discount the main focus.

This is even the case in Scripture. Some gospels have Jesus teaching in Jerusalem on more than one occasion. Others suggest his ministry slowly built and moved towards Jerusalem. Contradiction? No, just difference in the perception of the witness. Same goes for the seemingly different genealogies of Jesus: different goals and perspectives on the same subject.

I know nothing of Mormonism except that not a single alleged North American event in the book has ever been substantiated archeologically. (oops) But beware of being too quick to grab a stick with which to beat on Smith. Somebody might turn it right back on you and your faith. Be sure you can withstand your own criteria for criticism.
 
THIS IS WHY THE CHURCH OF JOSEPH SMITH
OF LATTER DAY SAINTS IS PURE EVIL!

PHARISEES!!!

If any Mormon here would
like to contend with the a-
bove statement, consider
Jesus & the Adulteress.​
 
Its more of showing Joseph Smith’s 7 version’s of the First Vision in an LDS court context. If Joseph Smith was tried by the LDS church today, they would have ruled him a liar. I believe that is what Texan is trying to portray.
 
manualman said:
Hmm, can I be devil’s advocate for a moment?

Eyewitness testimony is actually considered pretty unreliable in court, as I understand it. People tend to focus on main points and remember peripheral details unclearly. Discrepancies in the peripheral details do not necessary discount the main focus.

This is even the case in Scripture. Some gospels have Jesus teaching in Jerusalem on more than one occasion. Others suggest his ministry slowly built and moved towards Jerusalem. Contradiction? No, just difference in the perception of the witness. Same goes for the seemingly different genealogies of Jesus: different goals and perspectives on the same subject.

I know nothing of Mormonism except that not a single alleged North American event in the book has ever been substantiated archeologically. (oops) But beware of being too quick to grab a stick with which to beat on Smith. Somebody might turn it right back on you and your faith. Be sure you can withstand your own criteria for criticism.
Click to expand...
Your point is well taken. The issue with the multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” is that the main focus changed numerous times until he settled on heavenly father and Jesus Christ. I wouldn’t have issues if the peripheral details were not consistent. If I had a supernatural vision, I don’t think it is asking me too much to remember who, specifically I saw. I should be able to remember if I saw a Jesus versus many angels versus one angel versus heavenly father and Jesus Christ. I wouldn’t get worked up if he couldn’t remember the exact day of the event or what the weather was like.

Also, if I discussed only one topic with the being, I should remember that one topic. If multiple topics are discussed, I can understand not remembering every single detail at each retelling, but there should be some consistency in the overall narrative.
 
I think I get the gist of what TexanKnight is trying to get at, but I think he sort of botched the execution.

Different people having slightly different testimonies of the same event is expected given the faultiness of human memory, and is precisely why small discrepancies found in the Gospels isn’t problematic for me. And it’s a little absurd that the verdict here would be one of guilt if many other people had varying (and in this case mutually exclusive) testimonies against the accused.

Assuming this is a parody of the First Visions(s) I think TexanKnight would’ve done well to have the accused as the sole witness providing multiple, contradictory accounts at various parts of the story. This is what I believe is the big problem of the First Vision(s). If these were all third person recollections of the same event it wouldn’t be as problematic as a single person changing his own story over the course of time.
 
I get the metaphor, but have pretty much said everything I have to say on the subject of 1st vision accounts in this thread. I started with post #10, and was done by post #74.

But I did have something to say about this:
The Church Court took a vote. Because the accused had so many versions of what happened, they had no choice but to find that the accused had lied and they excommunicated him.
Click to expand...
I once ‘crashed’ a meeting held by my Stake for senior priesthood leadership (bishoprics and higher). Seems like an odd thing to want to crash, but they told me an apostle would be conducting, and I wanted to hear what he had to say. The apostle was Robert D. Hales. He had a question and answer period, and one bishop stood up and asked him a hypothetical question. I’m paraphrasing from memory here, but the question was along the lines of this: “Let’s say if I’m conducting a temple recommend interview, and I have a very strong suspicion that the member is not worthy to enter the temple. The member claims to be worthy, but I suspect he is not. Should I issue the temple recommend?”

Elder Hales, without hesitating said (again, I’m paraphrasing from memory): “In cases where you have no conclusive evidence or firm proof, and the spirit does not dictate one way or the other, you should issue the recommend. Remember, the temple is a place for a member to account for his stewardships with the Lord, and a strong suspicion from a bishop should not stand in the way of that. If he is unworthy, he can take it up with the Lord in the temple, and maybe his conscience will be pricked to resolve the issue. If he is worthy, it’s important we do not deny the blessings of the temple based on heresay or inconclusive evidence.”

I know this story is not directly related to the subject of this thread. But with your talk of how the church court “had no choice but to find that the accused had lied”, I thought I’d relay my personal experience about how the church actually advises it’s local leaders to proceed in matters of worthiness and discipline.
 
There is no evidence that this is a true account of an actual internal Latter Day Saint court. No firm opinion can be made about the LDS without verifying that the incident occurred, and that it if it occurred, it is not an isolated incident.
 
manualman said:
Hmm, can I be devil’s advocate for a moment?

Eyewitness testimony is actually considered pretty unreliable in court, as I understand it. People tend to focus on main points and remember peripheral details unclearly. Discrepancies in the peripheral details do not necessary discount the main focus.

Not really true. As a litigator for over 20 years, eyewitness testimony is relied upon heavily.

This is even the case in Scripture. Some gospels have Jesus teaching in Jerusalem on more than one occasion. Others suggest his ministry slowly built and moved towards Jerusalem. Contradiction? No, just difference in the perception of the witness. Same goes for the seemingly different genealogies of Jesus: different goals and perspectives on the same subject.

Not a good example. The Scriptures to which you refer were written thousands of years ago by different men and have been translated and rewritten many times…not the same with js’ story…

I know nothing of Mormonism except that not a single alleged North American event in the book has ever been substantiated archeologically. (oops) But beware of being too quick to grab a stick with which to beat on Smith. Somebody might turn it right back on you and your faith. Be sure you can withstand your own criteria for criticism.

bring it on
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top