Report on UK court session today

Let’s wait to see some kind of official report / article about it. Hearsay is fine at times, but, for something like this, it’s better to get something that is less personally filtered than an observer with a specific agenda.

Will there be an official church statement on the proceedings? Will Deseret News cover it?

They’ll post an article on lds.org in 40 years. :angel:

Nice. I appreciate the cynicism.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I really can’t believe this wasn’t thrown out of court.

How not to reform Mormonism.

I’ve made enough comments about this on another thread.

Not much info here but Deseret News did report on the event:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865598685/British-judge-hears-arguments-in-case-LDS-Church-calls-mischief.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865598685/British-judge-hears-arguments-in-case-LDS-Church-calls-mischief.html

Salt Lake Tribune offered a few more details:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57683745-78/church-phillips-mormon-case.html.csp” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57683745-78/church-phillips-mormon-case.html.csp

What I thought. No news whatsoever. There will be a ruling by the end of the day Tuesday on whether to allow the suit to continue.

Let’s wait to hear what the decision is.

It will be next Thursday that a decision is made (10am GMT).

The SLT and DN articles are very limited. Take it for what you will, but here’s a summary of those who were “live blogging” at the hearing. I hate to disappoint, but this is the best we’ll get. There are no transcripts in UK court cases. You’re not going to be able to sit and read through the 3-4 hours of proceedings later and journalists will only give brief summaries.

So, from reading a few sources, here is the main defense from the church (my comments in brackets):

1. It’s not compliant with criminal justice act

2. Non justiciable (I don’t know what this is)

3. The 6 allegations of fraud are about religious belief not statements of fact

4. No evidence Pres. Monson does not hold the beliefs

5. No vicarious criminal liability in UK law so President Monson is not accountable

6. Pres. Monson did not cause the alleged fraud

7. The case is a vexatious harassment of church and only done for publicity

8. Prosecutor must refine evidence to prove it’s not a flippant case and an abuse of process wrong to subject church to abusive process

9. It contravenes monson’s human rights (as in, everyone has a right to any religious belief)

10. Philips is not qualified to bring the action (this has already been dismissed as this only applies to paid lawyers. Philips is not being paid to do this)

At this stage they are not trying to defend the 6 statements which allege fraud, instead they are currently assessing whether this qualifies for trial at all.

The ‘prosecution’ have said:

1. They argue that it is within the law and TP’s rights.

2. If someone says a belief e.g. god is the almighty father, that is a statement of belief. If someone says this book is translated from this document then that is a statement of fact which can be tested.

3. Courts can not decide on doctrinal validity, but churches are not above the law of the land. Gave an example of a UK Rastafarian who defended his possession of cannabis with the claim it was an act of worship. Still convicted because cannabis possession is against the law. President Monson has right to practice religion, but does not have the right to commit fraud, any more than he has the right to smoke his cannabis.

4. Listed a lot of church publications (Ensign/website) where claims are made as statements of fact, not as beliefs. Say that Pres. Monson should be held responsible for these statements.

Excellent summary. As I thought, this can’t go far as the UK courts would be flooded with similar cases. The claim it is a stunt is true, there are better ways ti reform the church.

These are only arguments of why it can’t go to trial, not the conclusion that it can’t. We’ll have to wait and see on Thursday.