Billy's comments to the RC #1 - "We always require at least two witnesses... except for when we don't."
Sorry Scully, but according to the brothers™, that's all based on scripture.
Geez, I've watched the replay on sections and that WT lawyer that does most of their talking, and sitting next to the blonde... I just want to punch him in the face. Such an annoying voice, manner, and message.
You know, I try not to be pedantic regarding spelling, but paragraph 13 of the Elder's Manual is really annoying because they replaced one word with another that means something completely different.
"Wrongdoing that would provide a BASES for disfellowshipping." Really?
Wouldn't BASIS be the word you're reaching for, oh perfect organization?
Unless you're talking about that weird baseball sexual metaphor. I mean, which base would be enough for disfellowshipping? 2nd? 3rd? Or would you have to go all the way to Home?
Sorry, carry on.
Sorry, not "disfellowshipping," but rather "scriptural freedom."
But, someone's getting disfellowshipped, anyhow.
I wonder if they read your earlier email...
Maybe Scully, but when it was Jackson that first mentioned that they accept circumstantial evidence, I wondered if he had read this thread. LOL
Either way, Billy, the point you made well was aired in the highest of legal forums. Cool stuff.
Not to be pedantic (sorry, couldn't resist) but "bases" (pronounced "bay-sees") is the plural form of "basis".
That being said, they shouldn't have put the word "a" in front of it.
Such an annoying voice, manner, and message...BILLY
He makes my skin crawl! One of my Facebook friends so perfectly summed him up..."Uriah Heep"
Yeah, Vidiot, they got it wrong either way!
For all intensive purposes, they suck at spelling and grammar!
Let's consider this separately, and then touch basis next week!