cityworker ( )

Date: March 14, 2014 11:34AM Posted by:Date: March 14, 2014 11:34AM

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