A court is not a venue for sorting out truth. A court is a place for establishing guilt or innocence of a CRIME, using material evidence.
That is simply not true. In fact, it is rarely true. Especially in a fraud case. In a fraud it is used to determine truth. In a personal injury or family case, it is used to establish truth. Again, I am an attorney. I am a trial attorney. Please do not presume that I know nothing about the court system. You are flat-out wrong.
The rules of admissible evidence and of admissible argumentation were much more loose in the First Century, which is why Paul and others felt they could welcome the opportunity to use Courts to proclaim the Gospel message. Courts have evolved tighter rules since then and do not afford such an opportunity.
Apples and oranges. As someone who takes full advantage of the Rules of Evidence, I am aware what is allowed and what is not. Based on the allegations in THIS case, monson would be allowed to present his evidence to support his contentions and rebut the allegations of the petitioner. The problem is, he has no evidence. Again, you are wrong.
Moreover, as worded in the complaint, the LDS Church does not actually teach as official dogma many of the items enumerated. Whatever an LDS Prophet or an LDS Apostle may say from a pulpit during General Conference, whatever may be implied or stated in Church-published manuals on doctrine, the only things which are authoritatively binding on Mormon faithful are found in the LDS “Standard Works”.
Again, you are wrong. Go back and read old threads. It has been proven that what a prophet teaches must be considered doctrine. This has been proven using the words of the lds prophets themselves. Now, if you want to call the past lds prophets liars, then maybe wee can finally agree on something.
Finally, Mormons do no pay tithes and offerings because of the things ennumerated in the complaint: they do not tithe because there were no deaths prior to 6000 BC. Mormons, like Catholics, give tithes and offerings to receive immaterial, ‘spiritual’ blessings for themselves, and in order to build edifices for worship, to help the poor, to enable missionary work, and to pay the administrative costs of a worldwide Church.
Wrong again. They pay their tithes because they want to go to heaven and you must pay your way. Again, I was LDS for a long time. I was a missionary. I was in the bishopric and the EQ presidency. I know what I was asked about my tithing. I know what I was told I could not have if I did not pay.
It is doubtful that British courts will want to delve into such matters. This case will likely be dismissed in short order. And rightfully so–if it were otherwise, the Pope could be extradicted for fraud next, on the grounds that he receives tithes and offerings because he makes fraudulent representations about something called “sin”, about something called “souls”, about how rites called “sacraments” have a salutary effect upon the relationship between “sin” and “souls”; that one particular sacrament is claimed to turn simple bread-like wafers into living flesh through a mythical process called ‘transubstantiation’–hopefully you get my point.
You have made no valid point. If the Pope has made claims about hills where battles took place that no one can find, then I hope the Pope IS called to prove it. If the Pope has made claims about translating from egyptian pa-pr, then I hope he IS called. The fact is, monson will not come. He can’t. He KNOWS the claims of the lds church are false. And this has nothing to do with what the courts will or will not do. It is about truth and the fact the lds church has none. I hope you get my point…
).