Xelasnave.1947
Manipulation, Domination and Control
and those three words describe almost all religious leaders, but definitely apply to ol' joe smitty for sure!
.
Billy Baxter
if it can't apply 100% to all things without specialised "interpretations" from elders or leadership of the church then it can't be true, nor can it be divine, infallible or any other description used for it.
2- given that there is no possible way for said slandered/libeled person to argue the point in court, then you can't prosecute
3- even if the church were to attempt to prosecute, then it comes to a matter of evidence, and we already know that ol' joey is anti-US gov't and worse, so where, exactly is the illegal OR the slander/libel?
more to the point, you have "assumptions" made by people that are not explanatory of action, nor can others testify as to the mindset of an individual. only to spoken or written direct communication that they're personally able to claim witness to. this means there is no one alive today that can "testify" for ol' joey
so your personal word or testimony is not reliable and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence in this thread alone to build a case for your intent to defraud, deception, intentional misrepresentation of historical fact and more.
actually, he presents an almost perfect example of sociopathic delusional psychosis with Dunning-Kruger. What is the primary tactic of the sociopath, most often seen in serial offenders like rapists or serial killers?that delusional rat bag Smith, should be called moron not Mormon, who was an evil liar using a seeing stone in the bottom of his hat over his face to translate, what presumably were non existent golden leaves, and that everything about him is evidence of extreme mental illness or extreme dishonesty and fraud or a evil combination of both.
Manipulation, Domination and Control
and those three words describe almost all religious leaders, but definitely apply to ol' joe smitty for sure!
.
Billy Baxter
no, it isn'twhile Mormonism is true
if it can't apply 100% to all things without specialised "interpretations" from elders or leadership of the church then it can't be true, nor can it be divine, infallible or any other description used for it.
slander
1- it's not slander. if it were provable as false it would be considered libel. learn to read before you make these types commentIt's legal but it's still slander.
2- given that there is no possible way for said slandered/libeled person to argue the point in court, then you can't prosecute
3- even if the church were to attempt to prosecute, then it comes to a matter of evidence, and we already know that ol' joey is anti-US gov't and worse, so where, exactly is the illegal OR the slander/libel?
but the US can provide physical evidence of far worse - physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimonyI have a testimony that Joseph Smith really was a prophet
more to the point, you have "assumptions" made by people that are not explanatory of action, nor can others testify as to the mindset of an individual. only to spoken or written direct communication that they're personally able to claim witness to. this means there is no one alive today that can "testify" for ol' joey
ok, physical evidence time again: you also said the abrahamic bible is true and yet there is considerable evidence proving you wrong. physical evidence as well as more. and again, this doesn't even actually open up the whole problem with the Canon.I've read the Book of Mormon about 7 times and I know it's true
so your personal word or testimony is not reliable and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence in this thread alone to build a case for your intent to defraud, deception, intentional misrepresentation of historical fact and more.