This is not about beliefs it is about how they get us all to believe by withholding and even lying about known facts. I have no problem if they tell the ENTIRE story and then people want to join or stay... But this withholding of non faith promoting facts because they are not useful... That is fraud pure and simple. It is not about beliefs... it is about presentation. Come clean on the entire story and then let the chips fall where they may. If people still want to participate then let em... But they don't do that because the chips wouldn't fall where they want them to fall, and that is the crux of the case here IMO.
If you need proof look at the number of people such as myself who have been members for 50+ years who know feel lied to and cheated. The essays are proof that they know what they have done and how far they are willing to come now (which isn't far enough). I don't think this will go very far but it should.
Asking court to decide on the churches assertion of facts, which he says may be proved to be false.
Case not about attacking beliefs of the church, but about fraud. Saying that church is not immune to prosecution cannot hide behind doctrine because of belief, but when Lies are involved absolutely church can be held to account.
Quoting other cases, Catholics Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Church of England, courts cannot decide on doctrinal validity. BUT.... They are in civil jurisdiction ... And not above the law of the land; it's about where you draw the line. And done with caution. E.g. Rastafarian in possession of cannabis he was prosecuted.... because it was part of an act worship Was no defence ... It was illegal according to law, so Rasta man was convicted!!
So it's now about religion versus law ... If any religious group however well-established carries out an illegal act then the law can cross into belief observance.
If a priest carries out sexual assault in a confessional, it is no defence for the priest to say what happens in the box is religion.
Lots of sex crime talk.. ... . (Irony much)
Talking about book of Abraham now, saying church states it as a fact ref is it a translation, this can be proven.
Book of Mormon, Philips want to discuss, is that created by smith.
America populated via Israel, can be proven by DNA
Joe and Hyrum death , circumstances Surrounding , this is taught as fact not belief .
6000 year life question, discussed
Adam and Eve, discussed.
Philips lawyer talking like the above is laughable.
See Monty Python type talk.
Monson, did he know? Did he act dishonestly? Did he expose to risk of loss.
All can be answered without crossing to belief, just stating that this is fact is fraud, if indeed it can be proved as known to be false and with intent to defraud.
Church conceded that everything it says is merely belief not fact THIS IS THE BIG ONE
I beleve this is True for me and you, no longer I know this is True for me and you!
What a shift! It's a social club for people with the same silly, bigoted, ignorant beliefs not a religion based on eternal truths of knowledge.
If only President Monson were to say this and not just his representatives that have sworn to represent him and be truthful in their representations.
"And the lawyer of the Lord's prophet went abroad and did disavow any claims of fact and knowledge stating this is a vexatious and loathsome proceeding about the beliefs and values a kind, humble man from Utah."
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2014 11:45AM by gentlestrength.
The church's legal team has me a bit confused. Six barristers (imagine what that costs), none of whom are LDS (unless that one SP dude is amongst them). How can they have been spun up on the finer points of church history and fiction so as to argue them in court? I would have thought there'd be at least one GA to keep them from making ingnorance mistakes. If any are made, Phillips & team will skewer them.
[Edit: Okay, apparently some TBM named Anderson, who is a "queen's counsel" is on the church's team. Unfortunately for him, he apparently shot off his mouth when the summons was announced and now looks the fool.]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2014 12:13PM by Void K. Packer.
The lawyers completely understand the case. It's a simple case of a corporation saying something and getting caught. Having a GA would only muddy the waters.
These days GAs follow the lawyers, not the other way round. The PR department gives all the revelations. If the lawyers say "don't use these words any more" the GAs will obey. Well except maybe Packer.:)
Publicity ... Philips lawyer hands magistrate a document , uk version of huff post , talking about summons , monson pic on it , quote from church ,,, the one where they say bizarre allegations ,,,, Neil Anderson -
the qc the church have used today , saying the court were in error issuing the summonses ,,, a QC giving quotes to press that a case he is defending is nonsense !!! DRAMA!!
Red face and neck for Anderson in court ... Wow.
The arrogance!!
Ripping into monson now , saying he is educated and knows it's false , and Quote --- lying for The Lord --- ha
Asking for trial , because If Philips Bloor and Ralph made up allegations then they attempted to pervert the course of justice therefore there should be a trial .
A UK term for a Barrister who, having practiced law for at least ten years, is given the honor on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor to earn the right to wear silk gown ('takes silk' as it is called) and take precedence over other Barristers in the court. A similar honor makes an attorney 'Senior Counsel' in British commonwealth countries.
In the US no such distinction is made or honor bestowed.
Attorney General is a political post, either elected or appointed. It's not a recognition or qualification given by the courts. The attorney general is the part of the executive branch that represents the other departments of the executive branch in court.
Oooh, I just understood the part about the case needing to go to court to punish Phillips, Bloor and Ralph if they've presented false allegations. Ha ha, nice manoever - even if the case shouldn't go forward against the church, it should for them. Wonder if that carries any weight with judge, though.