Posted by:
Once Again
(
)
Date: February 06, 2014 04:59PM
Fraud requires a KNOWING misrepresentation of fact for the purpose of gain. Tom's case must be based on more than a "mis-belief". And it must have a unique element that puts it apart from prior cases. There are things that the General Authorities KNOW are not true. In addition to the claims now presented, Tom should consider adding the argument below. It comes from an earlier post.
...........
At every General Conference the General Authorities raise their hands in confirmation that they are "Prophets, Seers and Revelators".
And this is done in a church that has, as its fundamental assertion, the doctrine of "Continuous", and "direct revelation" from God having the same keys and powers of its founder Joseph Smith -- who himself regularly claimed to literally see and talk with God.
That is the fundamental claim and justification for Mormonism - that God is literally directing the church through factual contact with the leadership.
That is also the assumption of devout members.
Is it out of place then to demand that these leaders swear under oath that this is actually happening? Very well. What color are God's eyes? Does He speak new or old English? When was the last time you had a conversation with God? When was the last time any other general Authority literally had a conversation with God?
If there is no affirmative answer, then there has been "false representation for gain". Billions worth of gain!
Is that inconsistent with the British Law?
Tom, I think that issue should be included in the case filing.
EDIT by YUP:
This assertion of "literal contact" with God greatly separates Mormonism from almost all other religions. This makes the case "unique" and sets it apart from other defenses and arguments made in prior cases.
It also keeps other religions from becoming friends of the court in that they do not share this quality with Mormonism.
Mormonism's greatest strength may end up being its greatest weakness.