DiscussMormonism.com

consiglieri wrote:I will be interested to see if the judge even considers this argument. The standard rule in such things is that the church had the opportunity to bring this argument in the original hearing, and a party doesn't typically get a second bite at the Apple with an argument they should've brought up before this.

The filing with th 1st amendment defense, is there answer to the complaint, doesn't that change things a bit as to what can be asserted?

boris wrote:

boris wrote:The dumbassery of your post is what I expect and anticipate on reddit, not here.

But, if you read the articles about the motion to dismiss hearing, you would gain insight into why the Church claiming the 1st Amendment.

I have a question wrote:Please feel free to share the insight you have gained from reading the articles about why the Church is claiming the 1st amendment.

I don't need to. It is in the articles about the motion to dismiss hearing.

Thought not.

google is your friend, you could easily find the ksl or deseretnews articles that cover the motion to dismiss hearing.

boris wrote:google is your friend, you could easily find the ksl or deseretnews articles that cover the motion to dismiss hearing.

Or you could just explain what it is you're so upset about?

Boris, are you related to smac97?

In any event, I am interested in seeing how you think religious liberty or the 1st amendment applies in this case. What arguments can be made? It seems that a fraud case has nothing to do with religious liberty. Society shouldn't grant free reign to religion to commit fraud in the name of religious liberty.

How do you respond?

boris wrote:google is your friend, you could easily find the ksl or deseretnews articles that cover the motion to dismiss hearing.

But I’m asking for your view and opinion. You must have one since you think I’m being a dumbass about it, so go ahead and share it with the group...

I have a question wrote:

boris wrote:google is your friend, you could easily find the ksl or deseretnews articles that cover the motion to dismiss hearing.

But I’m asking for your view and opinion. You must have one since you think I’m being a d__a__ about it, so go ahead and share it with the group...

I think if you looked up what Denson is required to prove to win in a fraudulent concealment claim and if you looked up the Deseretnews article about the motion to dismiss hearing you could get the insight needed as to the 1st Amendment claim. I will not attempt to provide that insight, as do not want to debate a theory that has not been fully developed and made known.

I have a question wrote:

boris wrote:google is your friend, you could easily find the ksl or deseretnews articles that cover the motion to dismiss hearing.

But I’m asking for your view and opinion. You must have one since you think I’m being a d__a__ about it, so go ahead and share it with the group...

boris wrote:I think if you looked up what Denson is required to prove to win in a fraudulent concealment claim and if you looked up the Deseretnews article about the motion to dismiss hearing you could get the insight needed as to the 1st Amendment claim. I will not attempt to provide that insight, as do not want to debate a theory that has not been fully developed and made known.

Why did you even enter the thread?

I'm with you IHAQ. It would seem that Boris only entered the thread so that he could imply you are a dumbass. I read back through the DN article and could gain no insight into why the Church is claiming the 1st Amendment.

I read the complaint from this link
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... PLAINT.pdf

"At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants held BISHOP out to the public
and members of the Church, including prospective sister missionaries, as a safe, honorable,
trustworthy and respected leader of the Church. Defendant COP taught DENSON and other sister
missionaries that a man called to be the President of the MTC, like BISHOP, would be a beacon
of faith, morality and religious leadership. Furthermore, Defendants also held the Provo, Utah MTC, and its premises, out as a safe, healthy, and trustworthy location and environment."

That seems to be the basis for the fraud. Again, no insight can be found from the DN article, but I read this statement:

"LDS Church attorney David Jordan argued that Denson knew after the alleged rape that Bishop wasn't "safe, honorable and trustworthy" as she said in her lawsuit she believed by virtue of his position as MTC president."

That statement makes it sound like it doesn't matter if the church knew of Bishop's perversions because once he raped her she knew what he was really like. I cannot see how that excuses the fraud and am even more puzzled how the First Amendment can possibly protect a church to allow it to knowingly promote a rapist as a "beacon of faith", but then this is the Mormon church that through Joseph Smith claims that adultery was commanded by God, even the taking of other men's wives.

Show me a religion not based on fraud.