A man was accused of adultery. He was called before a Church Court. He was was told he was accused of being with a woman, not his wife, on a certain date. He was asked if it was true.
He said no. He said that, on that date, he was with a male friend in a park. He said they talked about religious corruption.
A witness called up. He was the scribe of the accused. He said that the meeting in the park actually occurred a year earlier. He said the accused was NOT with a friend, but two specific people were there and lots of other folks were in the group. They discussed sins.
But then the scribe said that, actually, the accused said that no specific people were there, just a bunch of other people, and that no specific thing was discussed.
But then another witness was questioned and said that yes, the meeting happened in the park about the time of the scribe’s first testimony. But that only two other people were there and they both looked alike. The subject discussed was that churches were in error.
But then a reporter testified. He said that two other people were present. He said that what was discussed was wondering if sins could be forgiven and that all churches must be in error.
But then a witness showed up with a diary of the accused. Said only two other folks were present, but they did not look alike. In fact, one had blue eyes.
The Church Court took a vote. Because the accused had so many versions of what happened, they had no choice but to find that the accused had lied and they excommunicated him.
It was a sad day.