sunstoned wrote:This comment from ThinksIThink proves that the delusion runs deep in TBM land.
Even if the case proceeds, the Church simply puts a reputable Egyptologist on the stand to attest to the fact that the Book of Abraham was translated from the Egyptian papyri - and case closed with respect to that allegation. And so forth through each factual allegation.
The Church should call Dr. Robert Ritner as it's expert witness......
sock puppet wrote:I think that the better defense than what appears to be a typical legalistic one is for LDS Inc to take the position that it posits theistic and prophetic ideas to people, who have ready access to scientific and logical deductions. Those who choose to join and pay tithing to rely on another 'sense'--a spiritual sense for the acquisition of truth. No fraud, because no reasonable reliance by those that choose to rely upon their 'spiritual sense' despite the readily available scientific and logical deductions.
This provides a defense, legally speaking, to fraud, and is consistent with what the LDS Church claims to its members.
Why take the head-on legal approach? The LDS Church is just playing right into the hands of the legal strategy of Tom Phillips and his lawyers.
I think what's novel under the Fraud Act is that Tom doesn't have to prove reasonable reliance. That makes it different from civil or criminal fraud in the U.S. I think he's right when he says he didn't need to have victims named in the suit. He just has to show that the statements were made with the intent to cause financial gain to Monson or financial harm to the members. No actual gain or loss is required.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
sock puppet wrote:I think that the better defense than what appears to be a typical legalistic one is for LDS Inc to take the position that it posits theistic and prophetic ideas to people, who have ready access to scientific and logical deductions. Those who choose to join and pay tithing to rely on another 'sense'--a spiritual sense for the acquisition of truth. No fraud, because no reasonable reliance by those that choose to rely upon their 'spiritual sense' despite the readily available scientific and logical deductions.
This provides a defense, legally speaking, to fraud, and is consistent with what the LDS Church claims to its members.
Why take the head-on legal approach? The LDS Church is just playing right into the hands of the legal strategy of Tom Phillips and his lawyers.
I think what's novel under the Fraud Act is that Tom doesn't have to prove reasonable reliance. That makes it different from civil or criminal fraud in the U.S. I think he's right when he says he didn't need to have victims named in the suit. He just has to show that the statements were made with the intent to cause financial gain to Monson or financial harm to the members. No actual gain or loss is required.
Reasonable reliance would play well in the court of public opinion, and make a court of law ruling to the contrary look ridiculous. Who has 'standing' to complain but the mentally challenged, after all?
LONDON — A British judge heard arguments Friday but did not make any decisions in the case of a disaffected Mormon who launched what has been characterized as a "bizarre" private prosecution against LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson.
The case was scheduled to be heard before Westminster Magistrates Court Senior District Judge Howard Riddle, with arguments presented by attorneys on both sides.
President Monson did not appear at the hearing in London.
“There was absolutely no requirement for President Monson to appear today," LDS Church spokesman Cody Craynor said. "The church was represented by legal counsel to contest the appropriateness of the summons.”
The church released a statement Friday afternoon after the hearing had ended.
"Unfortunately there is nothing to stop a member of the public with a personal grievance playing this kind of mischief with the legal system," Craynor said. "The church respects the judicial system and the law, and we are well prepared to see the process through. A court case which seeks to put a religion on trial for its theology has no precedent and we are ultimately confident that it will be dismissed."
The disaffected church member who initiated the proceedings is Thomas Phillips.
Comments so far:
1. Just trying Webster, UT, 50 minutes ago
I can't wait to read the transcripts. Six and a half hours is a long time.
2. iambookus Orem, UT, 23 minutes ago
1st day and seems like the LDS Church is losing by a mile.
3. Average Human Being west jordan, UT, 20 minutes ago
Who is calling this case "bizarre"? This is actually a very serious case. If the church is found guilty, it could have a huge impact on the church financially and regionally on how they operate in England. If I was the church, I would certainly put forth my best efforts to try and defend this case instead of just writing it off as "bizarre" and "mischief".
Re. comment 1.
It's a British court, there will be no transcript. You only get what's reported by attendees.
