- Topic
With all the accusations against former members allegedly “slandering” the WMSCOG, I decided to get the definition of slander and start a thread about it.
slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one’s occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications. (See: defamation, fair comment)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved. (WWW.dictionary.com)
So according to the definition of slander the person(s) accused must tell something untrue about the other party. The WMSCOG cannot prove a person is lying by merely saying they are “lying”.
No but the events Ron said about 2010 never came to take place, that proves it was a lie.
The claim that black members were discriminated and weren't given eternal life is proven wrong by the testimony of such members themselves, that proves it was a lie.
The claim that "we" as a whole church testified the end of the world in 2012 yet less than 1% of our 1.7 million members believe that, proves that you are asserting assumptions as if they were facts, and by claiming they are facts it exposes the lie.
Claiming we intentionally commited fraud, not only is that a lie, but specifically when claiming someone has done something illegal, you HAVE to prove it in a court of law and posit evidence or else you risk being accused of Slander in the highest order. That is, in fact, the very foundation for slander being a law, to protect people from being accused of illegal activities they did not commit.
You must prove us guilty in a court of law before you are EVER allowed to call us frauds. There is a limit to free speech, and your free speech ends where our rights begin.
We do not desire conflict over this, it would be better for you to respect the rights of others before you push this issue farther than you want it to go.
If you had proof you wouldn't have to wait for anything.
Lol.
From what I hear being said by former members, there seems to be a lot of discrepancy between zions. If Ron says he was in a meeting where certain things were said, how can anyone who wasn't at the same meeting make a categorical statement that he was lying? If there are people, and I know there are, who say they had been told that 2012 prediction, then you can't just sweep it away as a lie. How it all happened is part of the propaganda machine I suppose.
Once again I repeat, if Ron is lying, why not sue him?
If our claims are so laughably obviously false it wouldn’t qualify as libel (the.CORRECT term for what they are accusing us of)
I’d like to see them try that on Ron. That’ll be a sour gamble for them.
Disturbed wrote:
Hey 144,000….your church is a FRAUD! And they engage in illegal activities
I don't know about you but I find short to the point statements to be very powerful!! Well said, Disturbed.
Just a suggestion but if you replace 144,000 with Mama-san you just might be worthy of a "Stainey"
"how can anyone who wasn't at the same meeting make a categorical statement that he was lying?"
Because the "secret" meetings were about events that were supposed to happen to the congregation as a whole, namely:
1.) Tell blacks they are cursed.
2.) Stop preaching to blacks.
Neither of theese two things actually happened, so we can conclude that Ron is blatantly lying.
But enjoy your time while it lasts.
Even if Ron Ramos is lying so is wmscog so frankly you’re fooling no-one with your distractions
You can't prove that Ron was never told that. You are just hoping and assuming that it didn't happen.
Simon wrote:
Even if Ron Ramos is lying so is wmscog so frankly you're fooling no-one with your distractions
Touche Simon.
Well said, well said.
i wonder why yhe wmscof dont preach to poor people I mean, Jesus, he preached to everyone
there aws this time i got out to preachi about mama zhang and choose pepole to preach to it, i ve chosen a homeless and my wmscof brothe said.
nono no not that, he is poor, i ve chosen another one, nono she is too yong, nono that one is so old, its look like a zombie, chose that teenagers over there, see?!
wmscof is good for a good laughter
144000 wrote:
"how can anyone who wasn't at the same meeting make a categorical statement that he was lying?"
Because the "secret" meetings were about events that were supposed to happen to the congregation as a whole, namely:
1.) Tell blacks they are cursed.
2.) Stop preaching to blacks.
Neither of theese two things actually happened, so we can conclude that Ron is blatantly lying.
But enjoy your time while it lasts.
Simple. Sue him.
Disturbed and Kung Lao are both lying here and 1.7 million members know it.
We do in fact preach to all peoples, even homeless and poor.
I myself know many brothers and sisters afflicted with poverty, and I myself had the privilidge of being granted the opportunity to preach to them, after which Father and Mother baptised four such individuals. Other brothers and sisters can confirm many similar stories.
We instruct members not to appeal to the homeless by offering them food first, because we don't want them to get the wrong idea and only come for the food, like the 5000 who left Jesus because they were only interested in food.
But we instruct them to come and learn, and we do share our food with them, and we watch carefully for whether they are more interested in the bible study or the food, and sometimes it takes longer to know if they understand and believe, because we are not mind-readers.
144000 wrote:
Disturbed and Kung Lao are both lying here and 1.7 million members know it.
We do in fact preach to all peoples, even homeless and poor.
I myself know many brothers and sisters afflicted with poverty, and I myself had the privilidge of being granted the opportunity to preach to them, after which Father and Mother baptised four such individuals. Other brothers and sisters can confirm many similar stories.
We instruct members not to appeal to the homeless by offering them food first, because we don't want them to get the wrong idea and only come for the food, like the 5000 who left Jesus because they were only interested in food.
But we instruct them to come and learn, and we do share our food with them, and we watch carefully for whether they are more interested in the bible study or the food, and sometimes it takes longer to know if they understand and believe, because we are not mind-readers.
Well that is good. And were those 4 poor people really baptized by 'father and mother' themselves? I thought 'father' was in heaven already.
But here you are again with these interesting Bible stories. Where does it say that those 5000 people left Jesus? In John 6:66 it only says that "many of his disciples turned back."
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.