THE MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Archives From 2005 thru 2014
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"THOMAS PHILLIPS".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
THOMAS PHILLIPS
Total Articles:
18
Tom Phillips is a retired management consultant. He joined the Church as a convert in 1969 and served in most leadership positions including Bishop, Stake President and Area Executive Secretary. He also served as the Area Controller for the British Isles and Africa as well as the Financial Director for the Church’s U.K. corporate entities.
|
|
There already exist sources of details of the second anointing and I probably will not add to that body of knowledge. However, I am posting this account to confirm the ordinance does actually take place currently, as I have received the ordinance, and how it is currently performed.
I state the names of the Apostle and Seventy involved as well as the date and actual temple so that the credibility cannot be questioned. I have not mentioned my own name as I wish the emphasis to be on the topic of the ordinance itself. It is not to protect my anonymity from the church, as the First Presidency will be able to identify me from this account within minutes, if not immediately.
Invitation
Preparation
The day itself - what happened
Feelings afterwards
Asked to nominate others
Aftermath
Invitation
In April 2002 Elder Harold G. Hillam of the First Quorum of Seventy, as President of the Europe West Area, called me into his office. He said he was extending to me and my wife (she was not present), on behalf of President Hinckley, an invitation to receive a "special blessing" in the Preston England Temple. He asked whether I had heard of the "second endowment" to which I replied no. I later told him that I had heard of it, but was so stunned by his invitation my mind went blank regarding the matter.
He told me very few people receive this blessing and it must be kept secret. He said if the general membership knew about it there would be problems. More would want to receive the ordinance than the apostles have time to accommodate and members would wonder why "so and so" had received it but they had not. I must not even tell my children. He said I should just tell them that their mother and I were going away for the day or weekend. He recommended I read all that Elder Bruce R. McConkie had written on the subject of "making your calling and election sure".
Elder Hillam promised me it would be a "life changing" experience. He said the ordinance was performed in Joseph Smith's time but had been discontinued during President David O. McKay's time. This resulted in only 2 of the then apostles, Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimball, having had this ordinance on the death of President Joseph Fielding Smith. It was therefore re-introduced and is still practised today. (I have seen no source that quotes this suspension of the ordinance, only Elder Hillam's word).
We were to be at the Preston England Temple on Sunday 19th May 2002 where Elder M. Russell Ballard, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, would perform the ordinance. We should have our temple recommends and our temple robes etc. with us.
Preparation
I went home and told my wife. She accepted it quite calmly. I reflected on my own life and personal worthiness. I read all that Elder McConkie had written on the subject and looked forward to the day with excitement. Basically, Elder McConkie wrote that , during the first endowment you are given certain blessings to become a king and a priest (queen and priestess) to the most high God, and these blessings are conditional on you remaining worthy of them. With the second endowment, the conditions are removed as you have already proven your faithfulness and entitlement to the blessings. Therefore, you are sealed up to the highest degree of the celestial kingdom unconditionally. Any sins committed afterward may render you liable to the "buffetings in the flesh" but they will not prevent you from attaining your exaltation. The only sin that is unpardonable is denying the Holy Ghost (or in some passages the shedding of innocent blood).
I had never expected this to happen to me. I assumed I would be judged in the next life, not have that judgement made in this life. It meant I and my wife would be guaranteed a celestial glory unless we committed the "unpardonable sin" which seemed to be unthinkable at the time. We had made it, the Lord, through his prophet, had informed us we were worthy of this high exaltation. I never thought it would be done in this way. I had assumed that, if anyone did deserve to have their calling and election made sure, the Lord would appear to them Himself. Like most members of the church I assumed all the apostles had made sure their calling and election and many of the other General Authorities of the church.
I felt a power helping me be a better person and more dedicated to the church.
I telephoned the temple to book accommodation for my wife and myself on Saturday 18th May so that we could make the most of the experience. I did not like lying to my family and friends as to our whereabouts that weekend. I did not feel comfortable as it was dishonest but I was instructed not to disclose what was happening. To tell people you will be at the temple on a Sunday, when supposedly all temples are closed, would raise further questions. I therefore told my children we were going to the temple for the weekend and would be attending a special meeting with Elder Ballard and the Area President on Sunday. This was not too unusual for my children to accept as I regularly attended Area Presidency meetings and had been assisting these same brethren the day before at a training session for stake presidents. Also, it was as truthful as I considered I could be while still keeping the second anointing secret.
On Saturday 18th May 2002, after Priesthood Leadership Training by Elder Ballard in Birmingham England, my wife and I drove to the Preston England Temple. We were surprised and delighted to discover that we had been given a "bridal suite" as our accommodation. It added to the special occasion. While walking in the temple grounds in the early evening we unexpectedly met a member of our ward who had attended a family wedding that day. She asked us what we were doing at the temple on a Saturday evening. I quickly mentioned something about Area Presidency meetings (she knew of my calling at the time, that I worked closely with the Area Presidency) and changed the subject. Again, I did not feel comfortable "lying for the Lord".
Anyway, my wife and I had a very pleasant evening preparing ourselves spiritually for our "life changing" experience.
At the Temple
Upon entering the temple we changed into our temple robes, met the other couples who were to receive the ordinance that day, and were led to an upper room that had been set apart for this purpose. I knew 3 of the other 4 couples. 2 of the husbands were former stake presidents and 1 was a mission president who had just completed his mission.
We were all seated in the room with Elder Ballard officiating, Elder Harold G. Hillam assisting, with Sister Carol Hillam, Elder Wayne S. Peterson and Sister Peterson as observers. A counsellor in the temple presidency was also present. The temple president was absent because his wife was seriously ill in hospital.
Elder Ballard explained what would be happening. We were to have our feet washed and be anointed by him. He was acting under the direction of the Prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley. We would then be allocated a sealing room for each couple to be alone and perform the second part of the ordinance. We would then all meet again with Elder Ballard in the celestial room.
The following is my best recollection of what happened in performing this ordinance. It has been nearly 6 years since it happened so I may well have omitted some things. I have briefly reviewed published accounts of the second anointing to jog my memory.
I. THE ORDINANCE OF THE WASHING OF THE FEET
I was beckoned to sit on a particular chair. Elder Ballard knelt and washed my feet, then dried them. This ordinance cleansed me from the blood and sins of this generation.
II. THE ORDINANCE OF SECOND ANOINTINGS -- Part One
Anointed and Ordained a King/Priest, Queen/Priestess
I was anointed with oil, on the top of my head, and then hands were laid upon my head, and I was ordained a king and a priest unto the Most High God, to rule and reign in the House of Israel forever. My head, brow, eyes, ears nose, lips etc. were anointed with oil and specific blessings were given related to knowing, understanding and speaking the truth. This ordinance gave me the fullness of the priesthood and a blessing was given which included the following :-
Sealing power to bind and loose, curse and bless.
Blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The Holy Spirit of Promise bestowed.
Blessed to live as long as life is desirable.
Blessed to attain unto the Godhood.
Power to be a member of a Godhead bestowed.
Sealed up to eternal life
Power to have the heavens opened.
We were charged not to reveal to other individuals that we had received this ordinance. My wife was also anointed and ordained a queen and priestess.
THE ORDINANCE OF SECOND ANOINTINGS -- Part Two
"The Washing of The Feet", Wife to Husband
The second part of the second anointing was explained to us. We (my wife and I) were to go to another sealing room where we would be alone as a couple. There would be a bowl of water and a towel. My wife was to wash my feet (as Mary did to Jesus) and dry them. She would then place her hands upon my head and pronounce a blessing upon me as the spirit dictated.
This was a very moving and personal experience for us as a couple and we both ended in tears of great joy.
Following this we met in the celestial room with Elder Ballard and the others. Elder Ballard summarized what had happened and asked if there were any questions as they could only be answered at this time, in this place as we were charged to tell nobody that we had received this ordinance.
I have stated earlier some of the things mentioned in the blessing given to me. I cannot recall everything and I did not record it at the time. As illustration, however, the following is apparently the blessing given to Heber C. Kimball by President Brigham Young and it is similar to the one I received :-
"Brigham Young proceeded to anoint Br. Heber C. Kimble and Vilate his wife --- and pronounced the following blessing namely Bro Heber C. Kimble in the name of Jesus Christ we pour upon thy head this Holy oil and we anoint thee a King and Priest unto the most High God and in and over the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints and also Israel in this the Holy Temple of the Lord, at Nauvoo the City of Joseph State of Ills. and I seal upon you power to bind on Earth and it Shall be bound in Heaven and whomso-ever thou Shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven, and whomsoever thou shalt curse Shalt be cursed, and whomsoever thou shalt bless, shall be blessed and I anoint thy head that it may be sound and thy brains shall be quick to think and to regulate thy whole body. and thine ears to hear the cries of the Poor and needy of thy Brethren, who shall come to thee for council and thine eyes that thou mayest see and understand the things of God--and that thou mayest behold Angels and thy mouth that [p. 4] thou mayest speak forth the great things of God and Seal upon you all the blessings of thy Progenitors Even Abraham Isaac and Jacob and even as Far back as the Priesthood: and I say that thou shalt live to a good old age Even to three score and ten and longer if thou desire it -- and thou shalt have Power to redeem thy progenitors and thou shalt have power over thy Posterity and shall Save all of them and bring them into thy Kingdom we also seal upon thee all the power and blessing of the Holy Reserection Even to the Eternal God head and no blessing that thy heart can conceive will be withheld from you and in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Amen--
He then anointed Sister Vilate Kimble a queen and Priestess unto her Husband [H. C. Kimball] in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints and in Iseral. and pronounced all the blessings upon her head in common with her husband."
/s/ John D. Lee
2. Taken from the Nauvoo Temple "Book of Anointings"; Historian's Office Library; January 8 - February 7, 1846; Book end title: "W. Richards" in gold leaf; C.H.D., CR/342/3/box 4.
Feelings Afterwards
There is no doubt this had been a "life changing experience" as promised by Elder Hillam. I felt the "spirit" even stronger.
Nominating Others for the Ordinance
A little time after this "life changing experience" Elder Hillam asked me to nominate 2 couples I knew to receive this ordinance. I took this charge very seriously and asked Elder Hillam what qualities I should consider. He answered "find another you, mature people who have been tried and tested yet remained absolutely committed and dedicated to the church". This was a flattering response. I knew the final decision would not be mine but, nevertheless, I considered it a very grave responsibility to make such nominations. I therefore went about it in the same manner I had done all my church life. I prayed for guidance to know Heavenly Father's will in this respect, made a list of all the people I knew who could be considered, worked it out in my own mind and fasted and prayed.
Previously I had assumed, if anyone made sure their calling and election, it was received at a personal visit from Jesus Christ. He knows us and is the perfect judge. Now I was in a position of nominating others for something so sacred, more onerous than nominating bishops, patriarchs, stake presidency counsellors etc. I still assumed all nominations from all sources would be whittled down by an Area President and Apostle and the final decisions would be made by President Hinckley as he personally consulted with the Lord. (Years later I saw that these, like everything else in the church, were purely the decisions of mortal men. What arrogance for a church leader to assume he has the right to decide who will go to the "highest heaven".)
Aftermath
Seventeen months later, in October 2003, I was studying in preparation for serving a full-time mission with my wife. Since June 2001 I had been told by General Authorities of the Church that, when I was ready to submit my mission papers, they would recommend me as a mission president.
I decided there was one question regarding the Book of Mormon I had answered many times before but I doubted anyone with a good scientific background would accept such an answer. As I considered God would not prevent someone joining his one true church simply because they had a better scientific education and understanding ("the glory of God is intelligence"), I studied to find an acceptable answer which I assumed would be to demonstrate the flaws in the scientific hypothesis. I wanted this answer for myself to teach others and for my missionaries if I were called as a mission president. NOT FOR ONE MINUTE, at that time, did I think the church was false. I KNEW, beyond any shadow of doubt, it was true. I just needed to know what was wrong with the currently held scientific views. After studying the specific scientific methodology, to my amazement, it stood up. These were not simply hypotheses and theories of scientists but demonstrable FACTS. I believed God to be the "Master Scientist" how else can He be thecreator of all things. Therefore, true science cannot be in conflict with His revealed word.
This led me to consider in more depth other truth claims of the church and discuss them with 2 general authorities and consult 2 Brigham Young University professors. CONCLUSION - THE CHURCH WAS NOT TRUE, I HAD ALLOWED MYSELF TO BE DECEIVED.
If anyone is interested, I will give an account of that journey of discovery and the ramifications for my family and myself another time.
| Here is a copy of letter I sent with specific questions regarding his proclamation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon I will also post his response.
2nd May 2012 Thomas Phillips
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 United States
Dear Elder Holland,
Truthfulness of The Book of Mormon
After you set me apart as stake president, you said "Tom, now we are sealed". I know you did not mean that literally, but I took it as a compliment and great honour to have a close association with you. Throughout the years my family and I have held you in great esteem.
Two letters you wrote to me are kept in a special file and in my `heart'. One letter iterated your admiration and appreciation of my son, Alan, and his effect on your son, Duff. As a proud parent I have retained this letter. The other letter was complimenting me on the way in which, as stake president, I dealt with apostates within my stake.
I mention these 2 letters to remind you of our association and the mutual love and respect we have shared. I have been a defender of the faith and greatly inspired by you. In fact I have used your `sudden death' argument regarding the Book of Mormon many times in the past. (See Note 1).
A few years ago I studied a certain aspect of science so that I could better explain to any investigator who was a scientist an important, true doctrine of the Book of Mormon that seemed to conflict with established science. At the time I had no doubt whatsoever of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (and the Church) so my studies were to understand the flaws in the scientific methodology. Then, I would be in a position to help an investigator overcome this `scientific hurdle' and know God's truth. The results of studying, pondering, fasting and praying were that the scientific methodology was sound and the fault was in that taught in the Book of Mormon (no death before the fall of Adam approximately 6,000 years ago). That led me to a study of other issues with the Book of Mormon and Church history which clearly showed a number of falsities.
Applying your `sudden death' challenge therefore could only lead to one conclusion, it was a fraud (your words - it is either true or a fraud). I had meetings with Elder Harold G. Hillam and later with Elder Gerald N. Lund. They both gave opposite and conflicting answers that confirmed to me the Church was not true.
The purpose of this letter is to seek your help, as we are `sealed', in resolving a conflict of eternal consequence to my family who still believe the Church is true. You are possibly aware of Alan's position as a stake president. I accept your `sudden death' option in that the Book of Mormon is either true, as Joseph Smith declared it, or it is a fraud. You are on public record (`Safety for the Soul' talk at General Conference October 2009 and posted on `youtube') vigorously defending the claim of its truthfulness and, in fact, deriding those who think otherwise (including me). We cannot both be right on this issue. Either you are right or I am, there appears to be no middle ground or `third way'. My family listen to you and others of the Brethren, holding you all in the highest of esteem. As taught and encouraged by the Church they refuse to discuss the issues with me but only wish to bear their testimony. They have not sought to correct any misunderstandings I may have, thereby reclaiming a `lost sheep', but choose to ignore the `elephant in the room'. I always believed the Church could bear any scrutiny as it was the one and only true church on the face of the earth.
If I am wrong on the facts, or have drawn incorrect conclusions, then I earnestly implore you to put me right.
Just as you suggest a "sudden death" position regarding The Book of Mormon, I see a "sudden death" either/or question for my situation. Either I am wrong, in which case please address my issues and demonstrate where I am wrong. I would love to be shown that I am wrong, having invested so much of my life in The Church. Or, I am right, in which case please acknowledge that fact to my family.
So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either
1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the `evidences' against its truthfulness mentioned later in this letter ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or
2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or
3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to `crawl over...etc.'
"If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages-especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers-if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit."
Whichever of these 3 you choose to do, will help not only myself but countless others by confirming the truth of the Book of Mormon or admitting it is a work of fiction (however and by whom written). Please do not ignore this request, as it goes to the very heart of the matter of the Church's veracity. A matter I would assume someone of your moral and academic stature would deem of vital importance. Why would you say something that is not true? I am not an angry `anti-Mormon', I am pro truth. I served diligently in the Church because I honestly believed (`knew') it to be true. Once I found out otherwise I could not, as encouraged by Church leaders, just continue in the faith so that I could keep my family. I could not live a lie.
This request is made to you because of our personal relationship and also because you have publically defended the Book of Mormon in General Conference which has been broadcast internationally by the Church and also been featured on `youtube' and `The Ensign'.
First permit me to outline the evidences I have discovered that point to the Book of Mormon not being true, or the Word of God . As stated previously, I would appreciate your comments on/refutation of these items, not as an "apologist" but as a truth seeker (whichever way that falls). These are only outline points for the purpose of brevity in this letter. I do not include all that would be included in a paper on such a topic because I assume you are already very familiar with the issues and the answers given by apologists.
Secondly, I list certain quotes from your talk which appear to me to be incorrect. Again I seek your comments/refutation.
Evidences the Book of Mormon is not True
1. 2 Nephi 2:22 and Alma 12:23,24 state there was no death of any kind (humans, all animals, birds, fish etc.) on this earth until the `Fall of Adam' which, according to Doctrine and Covenants section 77:6,7 occurred approximately 6,000 years ago. This is obviously false as it is scientifically established there has been life and death on this planet for billions of years. (See Note 2).
2. The Book of Mormon purports to tell the true origins of the American Indian, descendants of Lehi and his family who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. Anthropologists have maintained for decades that the American Indians came to North America via the Bering Strait some 15,000 - 30, 000 years ago. Recent DNA studies have conclusively proven the American Indians are not descendents of Lehi and his family. Yes, I am aware of BYU professors who `play loose' with DNA studies in order to defend the Book of Mormon. They also re-invent the Church's teachings regarding the American Indian (flying in the face of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor through to at least Spencer W. Kimball and the Lord Himself in DandC section 54:8 and others) offering a limited geography theory etc.. I understand the title page to the Book of Mormon has even been amended in this regard in recent years. (See Note 4).
3. Archaeology - there is absolutely no evidence of the Nephites and Lamanites who numbered in the millions according to the Book of Mormon. Contrast this with the Roman occupation of Britain (and other countries). Having lived in England, as well as your frequent visits and reading, you will be aware of abundant evidence the Romans were there during the first 400 years A.D. e.g. villas, mosaic floors, public baths , coins, armour, weapons, writings, art, pottery etc. etc. Even the major road system used today was originally built by the Romans (A1, A2, A4 etc. now with motorways added). Why are there no Nephite buildings, roads, coins, armour, pottery, art etc. Again, the Book of Mormon teaches a period of peace and prosperity lasting about 200 years after Jesus Christ visited the American Continent. Where are the temples etc? Where is the evidence of the 2 million + who died in battles at Hill Cumorah? No bones, chariots, swords, coins, armour, hair? Surely, if it happened it would be easy for archaeologists to find evidence in Palmyra. But then apologists wish to say Cumorah was somewhere else, yet to be discovered. It seems Joseph Smith did not understand the 2 Cumorahs, neither has it been mentioned in decades of pageants put on by the Church at `Hill Cumorah' in upstate New York. There is ample evidence of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations as well as a civilization in current day Texas that dates back 15,000 years. Why no Nephite or Lamanite evidence? Indeed, not only is there no positive evidence for them there is evidence to confirm that certain things, mentioned in the Book of Mormon pertaining to them, were not even on the American continent at the time (e.g. horses, chariots, steel etc.). (See Note 3).
4. Book of Abraham - I mention this as evidence against the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as an example of the `modus operandi' of Joseph Smith. The arguments of your apologists (e.g. Hugh Nibley and Michael D. Rhodes) to defend the Book of Abraham are an insult to intelligence and certainly would not stand up to peer review by recognised Egyptologists. The Church has had parts of the papyri since, I think, 1967 and they have been translated by Egyptologists. They are no more than magical funerary texts, often buried with the dead, and nothing to do with the purported translation by Joseph Smith. If he lied about the Book of Abraham is it not conceivable he lied about the Book of Mormon? Also, pertinent to this point, is the fact that Joseph lied about (denied) his plural wives and the allegations made by the `Nauvoo Expositor' which turned out to be true. Other evidence of Joseph's modus operandi re translation projects are the `Greek Psalter' and `Kinderhook Plates' incidents. (See Note 5).
5. Changing skin colour - the Lamanites were cursed by the Lord with a skin of darkness (blackness) because of their sins and so that they would not be attractive to the Nephites. On some occasions, when Lamanites converted and became righteous their skin became whiter. This doctrine was commented on in recent times by President Spencer W. Kimball who noted the lightening of the skins of `Lamanites' (American Indians and Polynesians) in one of his talks. Now I ask you is this the `word of God'? Did God use skin colour as a differentiator? Of course he did you may say, he did it with Cain and his descendents. So the racist teachings of Brigham Young etc. have their foundation in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith's understanding of the book of Genesis. According to science, skin colour is a product of genetics and climate on pigmentation of the skin. Any white person can become dark by sunbathing but the colour change is not permanent. A black person does not become white by being righteous, how offensive, how insulting, how racist. If it is possible (and ethical) to change the colour of a person's skin in an instant (and then change it back when they become righteous) then it would indicate the Book of Mormon is true in this regard. However, I am of the opinion that any educated, ethical person would consider this doctrine untrue/false. Please explain to me how this doctrine can be true rather than misinformed 19th century thinking. "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21).
6. Other `true doctrines' of the Church, taken from the Book of Mormon and/or the Doctrine and Covenants ,that are proven false by science include the following (a) all humans alive today are not the descendants of just 2 people (Adam and Eve) who lived (came from the Garden of Eden) approximately 6,000 years ago neither are they the descendants of just one man (Noah) about 4,500 years ago (b) there was no world-wide flood of the earth about 4,500 years ago (c) different languages did not arise in the manner described regarding the Tower of Babel (per Bible and Book of Mormon) (d) the human race did not start in what is now the state of Missouri (DandC 116:1) then migrate to the Middle East in consequence of a universal flooding of the earth. From the Encycloaedia of Mormonism "It wasn't until May 1838 that revelation (DandC 116) identified Adam-ondi-Ahman, a site near the Garden of Eden, to be in Daviess County, Missouri, some seventy miles from present-day Kansas City. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., New York City: Macmillan, 1992, 1:19-20.)"
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials'. December 1770
Quote
"The problem Mormonism encounters is that so many of its claims are well within the realm of scientific study, and as such, can be proven or disproven. To cling to faith in these areas, where the overwhelming evidence is against you, is wilful ignorance, not spiritual dedication."
Evidence the Book of Mormon is True
Here are some specific quotes from your talk, which I take as your arguments for the Book of Mormon's truthfulness, with my comments/questions added in italics :-
`Safety for the Soul' Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world . . . that the Book of Mormon is true. In what respects is it true? It is not true according to scientific laws, anthropology, zoology, metallurgy, chemistry, physics, biology, linguistics, history, archaeology etc. Why would you say something that is not true?
The Savior warned that in the last days even those of the covenant, the very elect, could be deceived by the enemy of truth the Book of Mormon itself is an enemy of truth if it declares things as true which are, in fact, false e.g. no death of any kind prior to 6,000 years ago (Book of Mormon actually states "fall of Adam" but Doctrine and Covenants section 77 places this at approximately 6,000 years ago); horses, steel etc. on American continent at time they were absent; origin of the American Indians etc. Please explain how I have been deceived and by whom.
As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness - you do not mention the other 999 elements, only the following which appears to be untrue :-
They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Untrue, they did not die for their faith. They were killed in a gun battle , Joseph shot at men and, according to President John Taylor, 2 of the men Joseph shot died. They were incarcerated because of Joseph's reprehensible behaviour and alleged crimes such as having a printing press destroyed (treason? - free speech) which he claimed had published lies about him that were, in fact true; that he practised and taught polygamy including with 14 year old girls and women already married (polyandry); was setting up a theocratic government etc. Why do you not defend the likes of William Law who, having tried to change Joseph's reprehensible behaviour, published the truth and was demonized by Joseph and the Church as a result. I believe the charges against Joseph were (1) inciting a riot and (2) treason against the State of Illinois At no time, am I aware, were Joseph and Hyrum offered the choice of saving their lives" if they deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon". What is your source for this idea? Please give evidence to support your statement or admit it is false.
Did the State of Illinois or the jailers give Joseph Smith the opportunity to denounce his religious claims and be freed? No. So he was not a martyr. He did not die for his religious beliefs.
Bear in mind the fallacy of your assertion - The claim that no fraud would walk to their death making a claim like Joseph Smith to the very end: this ignores the countless cult leaders like David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones etc.
For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history-perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands Where does it stand? Is it used in American history classes or used by those studying American history? No, it has been extensively proven false by many. If it still stands it should be easy for you to satisfactorily explain the issues I raised above as evidences that it is not true.
None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator Completely untrue, the one answer Joseph gave is the most absurd and the only one lacking in any real evidence except the "burning in the bosom" which is the same evidence for the truthfulness of the Quran, Hinduism, Scientology and thousands of other beliefs/traditions/fortune telling which totally oppose the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has been shown to be a work of fiction by many credible authors and is viewed as such by the Smithsonian Institute. Otherwise scholars of American history would readily use the book for their work. Again, answer my issues if I am incorrect.
Your use of the word `pathetic' is rather disturbing. In what way are other suggestions as to the origin of the Book of Mormon and, by inference, my questions, `pathetic? Ethan Smith's "A View of the Hebrews" could be a source, as agreed by Elder B.H. Roberts. The King James translation of the Bible has certainly been used/copied verbatim (including errors in that translation) as well as common 19th century themes prevalent in upstate New York. Please explain why you used the derogatory word `pathetic'.
"No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so." This argument could be used to prove The Quran true. Also Ethan Smith's "A View of the Hebrews" Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy and Rowling's Harry Potter books.
If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages-especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers-if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit.
How offensive a statement! Without giving any evidence in your talk that the book is true, other than a misleading statement and innuendo that Joseph and Hyrum gave their lives for it, you say I (yes me, Thomas William Phillips) have been deceived and if I leave this Church i must do so by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon..If this is so, please answer my issues so that I may know in what facts I have been deceived and the identity of my deceiver(s).
After meeting with 2 General Authorities of the Church, who each gave me opposite answers, I have concluded that they and you are deceived and to believe in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon you all have to crawl over or under or around the facts and evidences of physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, anthropology, linguistics, zoology, palaeontology, archaeology, metallurgy, history etc. If my conclusion is wrong please correct me by explaining the fallacy of my logic and by whom I have, in your words, been deceived. Did Elder Hillam deceive me in stating "of course there has been death on this planet for billions of years" or Elder Lund by stating" the scientists are wrong, there has been no death prior to approximately 6,000 years ago. Carbon dating is incorrect."? Which of these 2 General Authorities has tried to deceive me? Did the academics in the fields mentioned above deceive me? Have they been deceived by Satan into teaching that which is not true in spite of the fact they can demonstrate/prove the conclusions of their research?
You also state that the likes of me are "foolish" and "misled" - please explain in what way(s) I am foolish and misled. Why do you use such offensive and unsubstantiated language? If I am foolish and misled you should easily be able to demonstrate that in which I am foolish and misled and by whom I have been misled.
Elder Holland, I am writing to you in this way as a `sudden death' (your words) type of plea. I have been through the appropriate Church channels to resolve my concerns but each of those Priesthood Leaders have merely confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon (and hence, following on from your specific challenge, the Church) is not true. My final plea is to you as an Apostle and public defender of the Book of Mormon. The apologists I have been referred to actually admit the truth of my concerns but try to re-define church doctrine and scripture, contrary to that clearly taught by the Brethren. An example of the answers I have been given by Priesthood Leaders are in Note 6.
As your declarations on the Book of Mormon and derision of those, such as myself, have been made so public (General Conference broadcast throughout the world, Ensign magazine and `youtube') I will be publishing this letter on two or more bulletin boards. I will also publish your reply to this letter so that all sides of the issues may be fairly represented.
So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either
1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the `evidences' against its truthfulness mentioned above ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or
2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or
3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to `crawl over...etc.'
If you are able to do (1) please explain to me how and by whom I have been misled.
Thank you for reading this letter and taking the time to respond. As mentioned at the beginning, I and my family have long admired and respected you. Copies of this letter are being sent to my immediate family who are all currently active members of the Church.
Sincerely,
Tom Phillips
Notes referenced in this letter
Note 1 - "Sudden Death" Proposition re Book of Mormon
In 1994, Elder Holland declared: "Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, "The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church..." "To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church - everything - rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith's account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a "sudden death" proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward." "Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, [1] after seeing the Father and the Son, [2] later beheld the angel Moroni, [3] repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually [4] receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which [5] he then translated according to the gift and power of God-or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson's comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those." "I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book ofMormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it. Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but let's not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy's imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take-morally, literarily, historically, or theologically." - Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, "True or False," New Era, June 1995, Page 64 (Excerpted from a CES Symposium address given at Brigham Young University on August 9, 1994.)
Note 2 No Death before 6k years ago is a doctrine of the Church
BIBLE DICTIONARY DEATH
Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Ne. 2: 22; Moses 6: 48). The Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints c 2006 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. Rights and use information. Privacy policy.
"And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end." (2Ne 2:22)
"And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death.
And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death." (Alma 12:23, 24)
This means to me that there was no death on this earth prior to the fall of Adam approximately 6,000 years ago (D and C 77:6-7). To confirm that I have understood this doctrine correctly I quote the following from a priesthood lesson manual for 1972-73 :-
"In that condition the earth and all upon it were not subject to death until Adam fell. When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the same judgment was placed on the earth and all things upon it. Therefore every living thing, including the earth itself, is entitled to death and the resurrection."
The above quote is from page 54 of "Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions A Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums 1972-73 Selections from the Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith" Tenth President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" published by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
I mention this source lest any excuse the teaching as Joseph Fielding Smith's own personal view and not that of the Church as has been done with some of the teachings of Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie etc. This was (in 1972) official church doctrine and accepted as such very emphatically by my stake president in 2004.
Also from the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith :-
"NO DEATH ON EARTH BEFORE FALL. The Lord pronounced the earth good when it was finished. Everything upon its face was called good. There was no death in the earth before the fall of Adam. I do not care what the scientists say in regard to dinosaurs and other creatures upon the earth millions of years ago, that lived and died and fought and struggled for existence. ...All life in the sea, the air, on the earth, was without death. Animals were not dying. Things were not changing as we find them changing in this mortal existence, for mortality had not come....
BOOK OF MORMON TEACHES TRUTH ABOUT FALL. We Latter-day Saints accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God. We have the assurance that the Lord placed the stamp of approval upon it at the time of the translation.The truth is the thing which will last. All the theory, Philosophy and wisdom of the wise that is not in harmony with revealed truth from God will perish. In regard to the pre-mortal condition of Adam and the entire earth, Lehi has stated the following :
And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. (2Ne. 2:19-26).
Is not this statement plain enough ? Whom are you going to believe, the Lord, or men?" ( pages 108-9 Doctrines of Salvation volume1 by Joseph Fielding Smith published by Bookcraft 1954 - states in the preface by Bruce R. McKenzie "Joseph Fielding Smith is the leading gospel scholar and the greatest doctrinal teacher of his generation. Few men in this dispensation have approached him in gospel knowledge or surpassed him in spiritual insight.")
The clear message from the above is that church doctrine, based on Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Genesis and statements by latter-day prophets is THERE WAS NO DEATH ON THIS EARTH PRIOR TO APPROX 6,000 YEARS AGO AND SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG BECAUSE THEY ARE CONTRADICTING THE WORD OF THE LORD.
Note 3 - Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
The detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas. The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period. Nor does the Book of Mormon mention many of the features of the civilizations which really did exist at that time in the Americas. The LDS church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-Columbian archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story. In addition, whereas the Book of Mormon presents the pictureof a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas, the pre-Columbian history of the Americas shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely east Asian - definitely not Semitic, as proven by recent DNA studies), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian. Richard Packham.
Note 4 - American Indians are `Lamanites'
"And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea." - Spencer W. Kimball/Ensign July 1971 "The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people." - Spencer W. Kimball /Ensign July 1971
Note 5 - The Book of Abraham a translation of some papyri
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM Translated from the papyrus, by Joseph Smith A translation of some ancient records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. -- The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus. See history of the church, vol. 2. pp.235,236,348-351 1974 edition of triple combo -- pub. LDS church I quote this because apologists , accepting Joseph's translation as completely different to those of Egyptologists, try to re-define the word `translate' and maintain Joseph did not actually translate but used the papyri as a catalyst to receive direct revelation. This is contrary to official statements by the Church and what has been taught all my Church life.
Note 6 - Answers from my Priesthood Leaders
As an example of the answers I have been given by my Priesthood Leaders I will give a brief summation of their answers regarding the teaching in the Book of Mormon that there was no death (of any kind, human, animal, fowl etc.) on this earth prior to the Fall of Adam which occurred (according to Doctrine and Covenants section 77) approximately 6,000 years ago. Established science (many different disciplines confirming the same) says there has been death on this planet for billions of years. So, either the Book of Mormon is true on this topic or science (in its many disciplines) is. They can't both be true, it is one or the other. If science is true, the Book of Mormon is false (and a fraud by your own words). If the Book of Mormon is true then science is mistaken on this topic. How is that for a `sudden death' proposition?
Here is a brief summation of the answers I have been given to this one question:-
President Tony Arnold (Stake President) - the Book of Mormon is true and science is wrong, no death occurred prior to 6,000 years ago. The scientists are wrong.
Elder Harold G. Hillam (Member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy and Area President, Europe West Area) stated words to the effect "Obviously there has been death on this planet for millions of years otherwise we would not have oil and gas. Also, as part of my training as a dentist and orthodontist I have held skulls in my hand that are more than 6,000 years old. The way I reconcile it in my mind is Adam was the first man made in the image of God". When I asked him the obvious follow up question, what happened to the other hominids that were alive at the time of and prior to Adam, he said "I don't know". Clearly he had not thought through the ramifications of his reconciliation of these conflicting "truths".
Bishop David Cook - first answer he gave me was that he did not read the scripture to mean that, but failed to tell me how he interpreted it. This was a great surprise as David, you know, spent his whole career in CES (Church Educational System) and had, in fact, been an Area Director for CES overseeing full time CES instructors. It was surprising to me that he chose to be unaware of something that was very clearly taught in both seminary and institute manuals. To me it was a sign of incompetence or trying to bend the truth. Later, in the company of the then Area President, Elder Gerald N. Lund, he agreed with Elder Lund that the doctrine of the Church is that there was no death of any kind on this earth prior to 6,000 years ago and science is wrong to say otherwise. He did, therefore, read the scripture "that way" contrary to what he said on his first (unaccompanied) visit to me.
Elder Gerald N. Lund (Area President, successor to President Hillam) - in his first meeting with me tried to side step this and other issues by posing the question "what is church doctrine ?". He also proudly admitted to being a `wordsmith'. On his second visit to my home he clearly confirmed that the doctrine of the Church, based on the Book of Mormon and statements by the prophets, was that there was no death of any kind, human or other, on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago and science had it wrong.
So, all 4 of these priesthood leaders admitted it was the official doctrine of the Church that there was no death of any kind (human, animal, fowl, fish etc.) on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago. 3 of them also stated science was wrong to say otherwise. Elder Hillam confirmed science was not wrong, there had been death on this planet for millions of years but he "reconciled" the disparity in his mind by offering an illogical and deeply flawed viewpoint.
I agree with all of them that this is the official doctrine as it is taught in the standard works as well as by prophets from Joseph Smith to Joseph Fielding Smith (see the 1972 Priesthood lesson manual) also in seminary, institute, Sunday School etc. and First presidency statements. I also agree with established science on the matter, that this planet is over 4 billion years old and death has occurred for most of that time. Therefore, I conclude that the Book of Mormon is wrong regarding this doctrine, as are the prophets who also advocated it (including Joseph Fielding Smith), and recent General Authorities, namely Elders Hillam and Lund not to mention Elder Russell M. Nelson in a conference talk. This is but one example of statements made in the Book of Mormon that are untrue. The book cannot, therefore, be true and your `sudden death' proposition must mean it is a fraud. It is a work compiled by Joseph Smith and possibly other 19th century authors containing the erroneous views of 19th century Americans.
Reply from Elder Holland to my letter
JRH Response and my reply
Elder Holland sent me an email in response to my letter but, being the bully and coward that he is, the following prohibition notice was appended to the email
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
This may, however, be a "corporate" notice and not intended by Elder Holland. If, so my apologies for calling him a coward and a bully. It is only his church that is a coward and bully.
I shall, however, publish my response to him and permit him and his church to copy and forward it as often as they like provided it is copied in its entirety and is in no way misrepresented nor used to misrepresent me. In my response I will have to, necessarily, quote from his email but I will do my utmost to protect private information such as the references he makes to my wife and his wife (including stating her whereabouts at a certain time - shame on you Jeff).
Dear Jeff,
You absolutely amazed me with your email. You are a highly educated, articulate and well read person with a PhD from Yale. Yet, you do not address one issue in my letter. Instead, you sent me a mindless rant. I was caught off guard. No way could I have imagined such a response. I expected you to justify your claims (such as Joseph Smith gave his life because he was not willing to deny the Book of Mormon) and refute the facts I put to you as evidence the Book of Mormon was not true.
I assumed you would honour your "sudden death" challenge that you have so often used. That it, the Book of Mormon, is either true or it is a fraud, there is no middle way. I would put it another way, it is either the word of God, as claimed by you, or it is a work of fiction put together by an author or authors in the nineteenth century. I believe my letter explains why I consider it to be the latter. Where is your refutation of such an opinion and justification for public statements you have made concerning its truthfulness? If you could not do this I expected a kindly brush off type of reply, not a rant full of logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks and insinuations.
I tried to defend your reputation when people were calling you a "dodo" and a liar. No, he's not like that, the Elder Holland I knew, loved and respected. Well, it seems you have proven me wrong in that respect. I recently watched your interview with Mr. Sweeney for a BBC programme entitled "The Mormon Candidate" and I could not believe your attempts at lying. Jeff, you are supposed to be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why lie to a reporter? Oh, I forgot, that is perfectly acceptable since Gordon B. Hinckley did it with Larry King, Mike Wallace etc.
Why not just answer my specific questions? I am sure, with your vast knowledge and experience, it would have taken less time than your mindless rant against me. You could have even handed it over to a BYU professor or another of your minions to draft a reply. You need only have taken the time to sign (even that could have been done by a signature machine or, in fact an email response could have been sent under your name without you even seeing it). That would have saved you time and the so called pain I have inflicted upon you. Get over it, If I have caused you pain by reminding you the church is not true, that is not my fault. The cause of your pain lies with you and the church.
As an apostle where is your `Christlike' love? You have opportunity of going after the `lost sheep' yet you choose to criticise and say "I don't care what you do". How Christian of you. In your BBC interview you offered to sit down with a group of ex-mormons to discuss their issues. Yet, when someone wrote to you and offered for a group to come and meet with you at any time and venue convenient for yourself, you did not reply. If you had replied appropriately to my letter thousands of ex-mormons may have been reclaimed by the church. Instead, you have proven to them most conclusively that the church is not true and you must be aware of that or you would not be feeling the pain. Some have observed you as having a `meltdown'. I now understand why they should come to such an observation.
Of course, another explanation could be you are not in `meltdown' but this is a very clever ploy by you to get the truth out without actually saying it. It's like a `hidden parable' that only those with ears to hear can hear. Perhaps your response to me could be translated "Tom, you are absolutely right, the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. However, I cannot say that because of sworn allegiance to my `Brethren' and all that I will lose. I have never seen Christ yet I always thought an apostle would. My ranting, crying, pounding the podium, prevarication with journalists etc. is my way of getting the message out subliminally. Of course, it's false but I cannot state that".
Now, to respond to your email. You asked me three specific questions and, although I have no obligation to reply because none of those questions have anything to do with claims I have made in public, I will respond. Unlike you, of whom I have asked specific questions pertaining to your published statements which you refuse to answer. Quotes from your email are in a different font to my reply or comments thereon.
"Tom, I love you but you absolutely break my heart. I have seldom met anyone during my years in England-unless it was your son Alan-in whom I saw greater potential. ......... You have a remarkable family. And that, of course, only adds to the immense pain I feel."
Why do you feel pain and how have I caused that pain? I wrote respectfully to you and asked questions based on factual information. Why should that cause you pain?
..................
" Oh, my! Tom, I weep over you and where you now find yourself. Don't you realize that I have been reading stuff like you sent since I was 25 years old? But, I am sad to say, never in all those years with such disappointment."
Firstly some of the "stuff" I sent you was not available when you were 25 years old e.g. DNA studies confirming origins of American Indians, Book of Abraham papyri ( 1967 I believe) etc. Also, if you figured out the answers when you were 25 (you are now 70+) it should be easy for you to answer my questions, if there were any credible answers. So, why weep over me? If I am wrong in my facts or conclusions, show me in a loving way. Don't refuse to address the issues and scold me for causing you pain. I suggest your pain comes from a lifetime of trying to be a valiant defender of that which indefensible.
"Tom, the Book of Mormon is true. It was delivered by and translated through the gift and power of God."
All I asked was how such a book, being the word of God, could contain so many falsities which you refuse to answer.
"Alongside this statement you can post on the bulletin board my General Conference talk on the subject. Now, may I ask you just a few questions?"
Yes, I will reply even though you refuse to reply to my questions.
"(1) Have you ever had a spiritual experience in your entire life? "
You know perfectly well I have had thousands of so called spiritual experiences. In my opinion they are equal to any of those that Joseph Smith had.
"Are you having any in recent days, or weeks, or months?"
Every day of my life (perhaps even every waking hour) I experience joy in the wonders and beauty of this planet and those people I love. By the way, weeping during a public address is not a "spiritual experience" it is an emotional experience
"No discussion of the Book of Mormon or the Church or the Gospel of Jesus Christ has any ultimate meaning at all without that experience."
Logical fallacy Dr. Holland? As well as being untrue.
"(2) How does your family feel about your views?"
What views? I have merely stated factual information from either church or school sources. They are not my views but those of so called prophets, seers and revelators and academic experts in specific disciplines. My family's response is exactly the same as yours. They refuse to answer or discuss the issues and hurl personal insults against me. My `sweet angel' of a wife, as you call her, has repeatedly said it would have been better for her if I had died while a faithful member of the church rather than live to `lose my faith'. My son Alan is the only one who eventually made known his 'views' regarding some of my statements. He agreed there were errors in the Book of Mormon such as the doctrine that there was no death on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago; that Joseph Smith was wrong (i.e. not commanded by God) to have more than one wife; that the church is wrong to campaign against same sex marriage (this was during the California proposition 8 fiasco); however, he still believes Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ in a grove of trees! Alan. As you know, is a stake president and has views (the first 3 of the 4 I mentioned) that are in direct opposition to the church. Of course, from the pulpit he will toe the party line.
"Are those views helping them?"
My views, if I were permitted to explain them, would help my family considerably and stop grandchildren being brainwashed into believing something which "you know ain't so" in the words of Samuel Clemens / Mark Twain with whom you are familiar through your post graduate work. My views would help them be more compassionate of others, less judgemental and use their time to genuinely help others instead of promoting the aims of a church based on a fictional book. By contrast, by following and adopting the views of your church they ought to be (but fortunately are not) racist, homophobic, misogynistic, hate the Catholic Church (whore of the Earth per Book of Mormon), hate Protestant churches ((the Lord told Joseph Smith their creeds were an abomination to Him per JS History), anti Semitic (Mormons teach that the inhabitants of this earth and particularly the Jews are the only people who would have killed the Son of God). I could specify many other groups the church is intolerant toward despite your protestationsto the contrary. Even in my own case your views are nasty and intolerant. According to church literature if someone like me who, as you know, has received the Second Anointing (made my exaltation basically unconditional) ,denies the Holy Ghost (interpreted as denying the church is true) they will be sons of perdition, cast out into outer darkness with Satan and his followers. Whereas, a man such as Adolf Hitler can inherit the Telestial Kingdom, still a kingdom of glory. So a man who kills 6 million Jews and countless others gets a better reward in the next life than I do according to Mormon theology (if there is such a thing). Does that sound like a just, loving God to you? No wonder there is shunning in the Mormon Church.
"Are people happier, prospering more, doing better following your lead?"
Yes, those that do are much happier and grateful to me for whatever small measure of help I have been to them. If you are referring to my family, however, well I have already told you that they have refused to take my lead in trying to establish what is true. Truth obviously means nothing to a true, devout Mormon!
"(3) Who are you trying to convince? Surely not me. Is it yourself or others?"
I am not trying to convince anyone. I merely wrote to you outlining specific information which appeared to contradict your claim/declaration that the Book of Mormon is true. You have chosen not to answer any of those evidences and resort to a personal attack on me. Who are you trying to convince? It would be easy to convince me if you had credible answers, but you don't. Are you content with convincing gullible church members who dote on your every word? Or, are you trying to convince yourself Jeff? Methinks this may be the case and would certainly explain your outbursts.
"You can do what you want about the Church, so do it. Stay. Leave. Hide. Run. Burn the Book of Mormon. Bury your temple covenants. Do anything you want. As the very book you reject says-truthfully-"you are free to act, and not be acted upon."
"Tom, my heart is broken as I write this. I wish I hadn't begun."
Why is your heart broken? If it is out of concern for me why not lovingly and kindly correct my misconceptions if there are any? If it is because I have challenged your beliefs, you need to examine them. If they are based on truth you will be able to explain that to me as I am not a "dodo". Why do you wish you hadn't begun? Do I not deserve a reply? Of course, you haven't even replied to the issues in my letter merely attacked me and ranted.
"I was raised without the Gospel in my youth and now I have it, so I am manifestly the wrong man to talk to about whether to go or whether to stay, whether the Book of Mormon is true or whether it isn't."
But you are wrong. You are exactly the right man for this task. You are the one who has spoken on television, written books and articles and declared solemnly to the world that you KNOW the Book of Mormon is true. Also, from an academic point of view did you not gain a master's degree for a dissertation on changes to the Book of Mormon? Weren't your Yale master's and doctorate degrees on American Studies? Are you not, as an Apostle, a special witness of Jesus Christ? You are the very man to give me credible answers. You must know the truth so why don't you share it instead of resorting to emotion filled drivel?
I say to you, Jeff, put up or shut up. Answer the considerable and overwhelming evidence that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction or, if you can't, stop trying to convince people it is true.
"The Book of Mormon changed my life more dramatically that any book could change any young man of whom I know-before or since- This does not make it true."
Millions of young men have had their lives dramatically changed by reading the Qur'an, the writings of Confucius, of Marcus Aurelius, of Plato, Aristotle, "Harry Potter", the writings of Karl Marx, the writings of Mao Zedong, also translated as Mao Tse-tung and thousands of other books.
I know a couple of Christian evangelists who were both alcoholics and had their lives transformed by the Bible. They now spend all their time spreading their Christian beliefs. They have been told by the Holy Ghost the Book of Mormon is not from God and Mormons are not Christian. They could claim the truthfulness of their beliefs by your same argument, a book changed their lives that no other book can (including the Book of Mormon).
"it was first and foremost the Book of Mormon that taught me that Jesus is the Christ and filled my soul with lightning." Again, I ask you how can a book so full of falsities teach you that? You should have addressed my issues but, obviously, you cannot I am also aware of very many people who claim their "soul has been filled with lightening" or similar experiences and they have never read the Book of Mormon or have discarded it as false.
Consider this, by your own assertions if the Book of Mormon is not true then the Church is not true. However, if the Book of Mormon is true, it does not follow that your church is true. There is the Community of Christ and 50 or more "Mormon" churches who claim the divinity of the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. In fact, those others appear to follow more closely the teachings of the Book of Mormon and those of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor. So which would be the true Mormon Church if the Book of Mormon were shown to be true? Those who say Joseph Smith went astray in his polygamy (The Community of Christ) or those who maintain Wilford Woodruff went astray in trying to stop polygamy (the FLDS etc.). Indeed, it would appear that Warren Jeffs is more of a prophet like Joseph Smith than Thomas S. Monson is.
"So do what you want, Tom, but don't embarrass yourself by asking about metallurgy or archeology or horses. The discussion about the power and promise of the Book of Mormon went light years beyond that a long time ago."
Again you amaze me with such a statement. When and how precisely did this go "light years beyond science and history". Jeff, you are either deliberately holding back information vital for mankind to understand the true nature of this planet and the universe or you are blowing smoke in the air. Which is it? Do you have knowledge our scientists would die for or are you mad?
"I love you and pray God you will be open to some spiritual indication of what is at stake here."
I see no evidence in your email nor in your works that you love me. You have refused to help and tried to blame me for some mysterious pain you feel, and you deride me. Which god will you pray to? The one depicted in a facsimile in the Book of Abraham who Joseph Smith said was God sitting on His throne. The figure has an erect penis which is rather a disturbing image of someone you pray to. It is, of course, quite normal if you understand the truth about the image, that it is a fictitious Egyptian fertility god. Don't bother Jeff, I desire no supplication to such a being.
"I do love you and I will pray through this very night for you, more so than I will for the man who has cancer whom I now leave to bless. Yours is the more serious circumstance."
How offensive! You are saying I am in a worse condition than a man dying of cancer. Have you gone completely mad? How can you say, let alone think, such a thing? I am so sorry for that man, for anyone suffering a terminal illness, particularly a painful one. I have witnessed many friends and family going through such agony. How cruel and offensive of you to say such a thing!. I am in remarkably good health and associate with friends who love me. I consider myself very blessed or fortunate and would hate to have any illness let alone a terminal one which, I understand, could happen to any of us. How awful of you, I cannot believe you capable of such a thought. You certainly are not the man I considered you to be and, in no way, do you demonstrate the compassion you profess that Jesus Christ taught.
"With immense sorrow but unfailing love,
Jeff"
Your sorrow is self inflicted. I have done nothing except tell the truth. That should not cause you sorrow. The truth should not be your enemy. As for your unfailing love - where is it? You have failed to give me a response, to justify your extraordinary claims and have tried to belittle me with your ravings. How is that `unfailing love'?
Jeff, please do not reply to this email unless you have anything of true substance to say. You will be wasting time for both of us. As i said earlier, either put up or shut up. I would like you to be man enough to substantiate that which you claim to be true or stop being a part of the brainwashing of innocent children such as my grandchildren.
Sorry, but unless you are man enough to do this I have lost all respect for you. If I can ever help you to seek truth and understanding I am willing to take whatever time you require,
I mean this in all sincerity,
Tom
| Presidents Of The Church Are Not "True Disciples Of Christ" According To The Church's Official Website
Tuesday, Nov 20, 2012, at 08:50 AM
Original Author(s): Anointed One
Topic: THOMAS PHILLIPS -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | How many of the 16 so called prophets have made racist statements and disqualified themselves as "true disciples of Christ" according to this statement from an official Church website?
The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that "no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children." From http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article...
By this standard Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson and Gordon B. Hinckley were not "true disciples of Christ". How could they then have been Presidents of the Church. If the founding prophet was not a true disciple, the Church cannot possibly be true. Of course we know there are many more tangible/provable reasons the church is not true. But this, by their own official modern day proclamations is another nail in their coffin.
Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.
Joseph Smith - Book of Mormon ( cursed with black skin, some became white and delightsome by righteousness) Book of Abraham and curse of Cain etc.
Brigham Young - too many to mention but examples would be that the negro is a slave and always will be, and will never be allowed to rule over whites; penalty of death on the spot for interracial sexual relations
John Taylor - the negro race was to provide bodies for the representatives of the Devil
Joseph Fielding Smith - re-affirmed in a very dogmatic manner all of the literal teachings of the Mormon scriptures and Prophets including the racial ones
Spencer W. Kimball - observed that some of the Lamanites in a congregation were whiter than they used to be
Ezra Taft Benson - flood the earth with the Book of Mormon including it's racist comments/doctrines
Gordon B. Hinckley - in his book "Truth will Prevail" he confirmed the Lamanites were descendents of Lehi and cursed with a skin of darkness
Apologies for not wasting my time to look up exact quotes so that I could reference them, but you get the gist. At least 6 of the Mormon Prophets, including the founding Prophet, were not true disciples of Christ according to the quote from Gordon B. Hinckley and officially stated on a Church website by its newsroom.
How can such buffoons hope to keep the scam going?
| I am honored to announce that the staff of MormonThink have asked me to be their new managing editor. I humbly accept this appointment and will strive to do whatever I can to help in their work of promoting truth regarding Church doctrines and history.
I acknowledge my own personal indebtedness to the MormonThink website in my quest for truthful answers to my own concerns. I am so grateful for the contributors to and staff of the site.
My first action has been to ask several of the contributors to respond to the latest attack by FAIR on the good people at MormonThink.
You can read our response to FAIR at http://mormonthink.com/fair.htm
My Home Page is here: http://mormonthink.com/tomphillips.ht...
Thank you all for your support.
| Periodically posts appear decrying how little of its income the Church spends on humanitarian aid especially when compared with other churches.
Well, I think it is far less than has been previously reported. I actually consider it is nil, zip, nada 0% of tithing.
Let's start with the generous viewpoint. On RFM there is an archived thread described as "Jan 2012 The Mormon Church's humanitarian aid now amounts to $6.73 per member per year - from an official Mormon publication. Humanitarian Aid"
Eric K provided this data for a 25 yer period
http://www.providentliving.org/welfar...
Humanitarian assistance rendered (1985-2009)
Cash Donations $327.6 million
Value of Material Assistance $884.6 million
They are claiming to have given some $1.2 billion during a period when they received say $125 billion in tithes (at a steady $5 billion per annum). Only 1%
However, this is not true, the Church spent NONE of its tithing income on humanitarian aid if its "Gospel Principles" manual is to be believed.
This manual gives a breakdown of what tithing covers and what is funded by "other offerings"
Gospel Principles (2011)
Tithing
Tithing is used by the Church for many purposes. Some of these are to:
1. Build, maintain, and operate temples, meetinghouses, and other buildings.
2. Provide operating funds for stakes, wards, and other units of the Church. (These units use the funds to carry out the ecclesiastical programs of the Church, which include teaching the gospel and conducting social activities.)
3. Help the missionary program.
4. Educate young people in Church schools, seminaries, and institutes.
5. Print and distribute lesson materials.
6. Help in family history and temple work.
(N.B. No humanitarian aid included above)
Other Offerings
Fast Offerings. Church members fast each month by going without food and drink for two consecutive meals. They contribute at least the amount of money they would have spent for the meals. They may give as generously as they are able. This offering is called the fast offering. Bishops use these fast offerings to provide food, shelter, clothing, and medical care for the needy.
(N.B. No humanitarian aid included in fast offerings unless you take it as caring for the needy by the bishops. Even if that were true, the money doesn't come from tithing but additional offerings of the members through going without food.)
Other Donations.
Church members may donate to other efforts of the Church, such as missionary work, the Perpetual Education Fund, temple construction, and humanitarian aid.
At last, here it is in "Other Donations". Therefore the $1.2 billion claimed to be spent on humanitarian aid, over a 25 year period, came not from tithing but from additional donations by members. One can presumably, therefore, surmise that NIL came from the tithing funds.
One can, of course, be pernickity and say the administrative costs associated with these other donations and disbursements came out of tithing. If true, it would still be a very tiny amount indeed. Actually the Church "calls" humanitarian aid missionaries to administer these matters. Such missionaries serve at their own expense although the Church may pay for some office space, travel expenses and paper clips.
Bottom line, it is disgusting, as pointed out by Eric K, that the Church claims to spend so little on humanitarian aid compared with its tithing income. It is even more despicable that they don't even pay the little they claim. It is the poor faithful members who pick up the tab, on top of their tithing, generous fast offerings, missionary donations, perpetual education fund, temples etc. etc,
How clever they are - truthful they are not.
| Quote:
"Recent reports actually show that the 2012 was a very productive year in Church growth. One website that tracks Church growth reported the following.
2012 was a significant year for stake growth. The Church organized more new stakes in 2012 than in any year since 1998. . . . No other year in Church history has had as many countries have a new stake created in a single year as in 2012. . . . The Church also created its first stake in more countries in 2012 than any year since 1977 as the first stakes were organized in Botswana, Cape Verde, India, New Caledonia, and Sierra Leone
The current statistical report of the Church is impressive, with high expectations in the near future for further Church growth on account of President Thomas S. Monson’s announcement of the change of the minimum age of prospective missionaries."
http://www.fairblog.org/2013/01/15/re...
FAIR and the Church just lie. Consider this quote:-
"So while it is true that Elder Jensen, as well as other Church leaders, including the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, are concerned with the level of members leaving the Church over anti-Mormon material on the Internet, and are currently enacting measures to combat this material,"
So, members are leaving over anti-Mormon material on the internet. Well I didn't leave over anti-Mormon material, I left because of scientific and historical facts, most of which had nothing directly to do with Mormonism. I left because of truth and accepted that the Church was anti-Truth. I think I speak for most ex mormons on this. Many have left over the truth about the Book of Abraham (from renowned Egyptologists), Joseph Smith's polyandry from the Church's own websites.
Nobody needs anti-Mormon material. The Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are the most serious "anti-Mormon materials" anywhere.
As to the second point they make "are currently enacting measures to combat this material," what exactly are these measures? More lies? How do they correct science, history and Egyptology?
No, they are just delusional and liars. All we ask is for them to admit the truth about their doctrines, scriptures and history. Is that so difficult for the "true Church"?
Oh yes, admitting the truth means "game over".
More than 6 million members in America = lie. A fraction of 1% leaving (1% of what number - 6 million, 14 million?) is another lie, grossly understated.
| Disciplinary Council For Apostasy - David Twede And Scott Gordon - A Case Study
Friday, Jan 18, 2013, at 07:37 PM
Original Author(s): Anointedone
Topic: THOMAS PHILLIPS -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | A great deal of media exposure was given to the threatened excommunication of David Twede, my predecessor as managing editor of MormonThink.
The charge? Apostasy. The evidence? His writings on the mormonthink website (not, apparently, about his writings on Mitt Romney). His accuser? Scott Gordon, President of FAIR, but officially it was David's stake president in Orlando, Florida.
Bear with me and let's consider whether David or Scott are at all 'guilty' of apostasy according to the rules of the Church and common sense.
The current Church rules on this matter are secret as they are only given to certain church leaders. However, wikipedia has an article on the subject of Church Discipline, based on the Church's 2006 handbook. So I will quote from the wiki article.
Firstly the purpose of Church discipline:-
According to the LDS Church, the purposes of its disciplinary councils are to:
1. save the souls of the transgressors;
2. protect the innocent; and
3. safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church
Secondly, it is mandatory to convene a disciplinary council in specified circumstances, one of which is "apostasy". Again, quoting wiki who are quoting the 2006 handbook:-
"The LDS Church has instructed leaders that a disciplinary council is mandatory when evidence suggests that a member of the church may have committed any of the following offences against the standards of the church:
Apostasy : refers to members who "repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders" and also includes those who repeatedly present information as church doctrine that is not church doctrine and those who repeatedly follow the teachings of apostate sects or those who formally join another church. Merely failing to attend church meetings does not qualify as apostasy."
Let's now consider whether David or Scott contravene any of these transgressions.
Firstly, the purpose of a DC
1. save the souls of the transgressors;
What transgression has David committed? None that we know of. The only purported charge is 'apostasy' which we'll look at below. Scott, however, has probably committed the transgression of promoting falsehoods, lying perhaps. That is certainly a 'sin' but would not usually justify excommunication or even a DC.
2. protect the innocent;
Who are the innocents to whom David is a danger - seekers of truth? Not guilty. Scott, however, is a danger to innocent children and those with cognitive dissonance who believe FAIR's misrepresentations.
3. safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church
David promotes the truth about the Church's doctrines and history, whereas FAIR changes the doctrines and history. David is, therefore, the defender of the purity and integrity of the Church. As to its good name, that would depend on the Church being honest, which it is not. Therefore the Church has already despoiled its own good name. David has tried his best to redeem its integrity. Scott has done his best, through FAIR, to continue an obvious deception.
From the above, I would conclude there is no purpose in taking action against David but Scott should be questioned thoroughly by his bishop. I do not think a DC is necessary unless, over time, he cannot repent of his misrepresentations.
Now let's consider apostasy the only charge against David.
Apostasy : refers to members who "repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders"
When did David do this and when was he warned not to do it? What actually did he do other than publish truthful articles about the Church, taken from Church scriptures and quotes from FAIR itself?
and also includes those who repeatedly present information as church doctrine that is not church doctrine
When did David do this? To my knowledge he has only presented official Church doctrine. Scott, however, has denied doctrines such as 'no death before the fall of Adam' has denied the global flood and promotes the limited geography theory and the two Palmyra theory - all of which contradict official Church doctrine.
"and those who repeatedly follow the teachings of apostate sects or those who formally join another church."
David does not follow the likes of the FLDS and he has not formally joined another church. He is guilty of wearing a paisley shirt to church but if
"Merely failing to attend church meetings does not qualify as apostasy." I cannot see how a paisley shirt would render him guilty.
My summary would be there is no reason to call a DC because David is clearly not guilty of misrepresenting Church doctrine and he is not a threat to innocents, only to those who refuse to accept truth. There is no way his writing about the truths of Church doctrine and history can harm the 'good name' of the Church that is, if it warrants a good name.
Scott Gordon, however, should be charged with apostasy for the reasons stated above (denying church doctrines) and others. Also, to protect the innocent (young or gullible). According to the 2006 handbook (it may have since been changed) a DC is mandatory for apostasy. Therefore, by their own rules they have to convene a DC for Scott Gordon to determine what action to take.
How many others warrant a DC under these rules? Lou Midgley, Daniel Peterson, John Welch? It's probably too late to excommunicate Gordon B. Hinckley who did so much harm to the good name of the Church by lying to the media and denying precious doctrines such as man becoming a God (DandC 132, King Follet discourse etc,), the curse of Cain (PofGP and many prophets), the important eternal significance of plural marriage.
| Elder Holland's reply to my letter to him concerning Book of Mormon issues puts in context the strategy of the 'Swedish Rescue'. The non answers by the Brethren and blaming anyone who asks questions. He dismisses the issues, counsels me to be open to the spirit and says my condition is worse than that of a man with terminal cancer (Jeff had delayed going to a hospital to give a terminal patient an apostolic blessing, in order to write to me).
An excerpt from my response to his reply with quotes from him (his statements in quotes):-
"So do what you want, Tom, but don't embarrass yourself by asking about metallurgy or archeology or horses. The discussion about the power and promise of the Book of Mormon went light years beyond that a long time ago."
Again you amaze me with such a statement. When and how precisely did this go "light years beyond science and history". Jeff, you are either deliberately holding back information vital for mankind to understand the true nature of this planet and the universe or you are blowing smoke in the air. Which is it? Do you have knowledge our scientists would die for or are you mad?
"I love you and pray God you will be open to some spiritual indication of what is at stake here."
I see no evidence in your email nor in your works that you love me. You have refused to help and tried to blame me for some mysterious pain you feel, and you deride me. Which god will you pray to? The one depicted in a facsimile in the Book of Abraham who Joseph Smith said was God sitting on His throne. The figure has an erect penis which is rather a disturbing image of someone you pray to. It is, of course, quite normal if you understand the truth about the image, that it is a fictitious Egyptian fertility god. Don't bother Jeff, I desire no supplication to such a being.
"I do love you and I will pray through this very night for you, more so than I will for the man who has cancer whom I now leave to bless. Yours is the more serious circumstance."
How offensive! You are saying I am in a worse condition than a man dying of cancer. Have you gone completely mad? How can you say, let alone think, such a thing? I am so sorry for that man, for anyone suffering a terminal illness, particularly a painful one. I have witnessed many friends and family going through such agony. How cruel and offensive of you to say such a thing!. I am in remarkably good health and associate with friends who love me. I consider myself very blessed or fortunate and would hate to have any illness let alone a terminal one which, I understand, could happen to any of us. How awful of you, I cannot believe you capable of such a thought. You certainly are not the man I considered you to be and, in no way, do you demonstrate the compassion you profess that Jesus Christ taught.
The full reply can be read at http://mormonthink.com/tomphillips.ht...
His final expression of love fell on my deaf ears, as evidenced by my final remarks to him in which I ask him to 'man up', rather ironic considering the 'Manhood Award' he recently received in St. George.
"With immense sorrow but unfailing love, Jeff"
Your sorrow is self inflicted. I have done nothing except tell the truth. That should not cause you sorrow. The truth should not be your enemy. As for your unfailing love - where is it? You have failed to give me a response, to justify your extraordinary claims and have tried to belittle me with your ravings. How is that `unfailing love'?
Jeff, please do not reply to this email unless you have anything of true substance to say. You will be wasting time for both of us. As i said earlier, either put up or shut up. I would like you to be man enough to substantiate that which you claim to be true or stop being a part of the brainwashing of innocent children such as my grandchildren.
Sorry, but unless you are man enough to do this I have lost all respect for you. If I can ever help you to seek truth and understanding I am willing to take whatever time you require,
I mean this in all sincerity, Tom
| This is taken from Reddit's AMA with Tom Phillips. You can read the full transcript here: http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comm....
Regarding the 'October Surprise' I would simply state I am still engaged in the process and unable to give further detail at this time. Rest assured, as soon as it is possible, I will be vocal. In the meantime any comment I make seems to lead to further speculation. Therefore it is best, if possible, to be patient. I cannot control the timing as I thought I could. When it happens I may offer to do another AMA based on this one topic.
Do you think we will see a 1st or 2nd Qof70 authority defect in the near future? It was validating to see Mattson leave but it would be even more validating if some higher up left.
Well there's the Grant Palmer contact.
I don't think it will happen until the general public are exposed to the truths of Mormonism. At the moment, the public perception is they are nice people and the church, though odd, does good. This perception will surely change.
Then more of the 70 may gain a different insight and be willing to be honest. I certainly hope but I can't think of one that I know, that has the integrity to break out. They have become company men and place their corporate loyalty over personal integrity.
They also know what happened to me and they don't want to give up the 'benefits' and suffer the humiliation from the faithful saints. They are stars to TBM, why would they risk being despised by their fan base. For what? Truth and integrity? They have already sold their souls on the 'altar of sacrifice' as Elder Maxwell called it.
I hope I am wrong and someone soon breaks out. Maybe Grant's man will do it. I doubt it though. Because if he is real the FP know who he is and the bribes and/or threats have already been made. Interesting how quiet he has gone.
If you are out there, please come out for the sake of the cause of truth. Free the innocent.
Since you received the SA can you now give it to others?
They did not give me that authority. Only an apostle can give the SA when expressly authorised to do so by the prophet.
Now, as they really make up their own rules and give themselves magic powers, I will do the same.
I seal you up unconditionally to eternal life, I ordain you a king and to be a God and member of a Godhead. I bless you that you you can live as long as you find this life desirable.
Go forth now my son, and commit whatever sin you like, for you will be forgiven after receiving a few buffetings of Satan while in the flesh. Be as sinful as you wish but do not deny the church. If you do that I will send you to outer darkness for eternity. You will never have forgiveness for such a gross sin in this life, nor the next.
You may massacre innocent women and children, as did my faithful servant John D. Lee. but don't you dare question Elder Holland on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. For that you will be eternally punished. Even my son Adolf Hitler will receive a kingdom of glory (the Telestial - see my words in DandC 76), but you will not. Telling the truth about the church is the unpardonable sin for, in so doing, you deny the Holy Ghost and crucify the Son of God again.
There, does that make you feel better. Go forth and multiply.
I'm curious if the church has offered you money to keep you quiet.
Cannot answer.
Does the church leadership know what the "surprise" is, and are they actively engaging you to stop/delay it? If they do know, how did they come by the knowledge of what it is? Lastly, have you ever felt physically threatened by the church while preparing your disclosure (I assume it is a disclosure of some type)
They do not, to my knowledge, know what the surprise is.
I have not felt physically threatened by the top 15 but I have felt danger from some members.
There is certainly a sinister undercurrent but not anything I can prove in court. They are clever enough to avoid that.
When were trying to decide whether or not to leave the LDS Church how big of a factor was the Second Anointing in that decision? Did you have any fear (even a tiny bit) that you could possibly be heading to "outer darkness" if you were wrong? It seems like this might be a factor in why some of the 70 or 15 stay even after they have doubts.
Yes, I had nightmares about it off and on over a 2 year period.
I kept telling myself not to worry. I already knew it was a pile of bunk. But the 'conditioning' has a lasting effect. Thankfully I am completely free of those nightmares.
Yes, I think fear and family play a big part in keeping others silent.
Elsewhere you mentioned that Dallin Oaks had previously been more open to gays in the Church. This reminded me of a conversation I had with someone who had personal relationships with a handful of 70's and a cordial but less personal and more distant relationship with one member of the 12. We discussed the issue of gays in the church and he relayed to me that there was at least one 70 who was on the verge of "finally getting it" and several others evolving rapidly on the topic of gays in the Church. I understand you haven't spoken to Jeff Holland recently, but given your history with him what do you think the chances are of a major policy shift in this arena if and when he becomes prophet?
Jeff is certainly capable of driving through the change even though I think he personally considers it a sin.
If his son Duff turned out to be gay (and let's make it perfectly clear, I have no evidence to suggest this. I am just saying supposing), it would speed Jeff's conversion to tolerance then acceptance.
Just look at the numbers. Out of the 100 top leaders in the church you are telling me none of them are gay? Add to that, the fact that they have large families, they must have sons, daughters, grandchildren that are gay/lesbian.
Of course it will appear to be a lower incidence than national averages because of the inherent motivation to stay in the closet.
Years ago, I had a very dear friend in the church who also became a stake president. Later in life, after a divorce from his wife, he openly lived with a younger returned missionary. They have now been together about 20 years, which is longer than he was married to his wife. How many are in the church in this situation? I am aware of some.
To answer your question, it has to be Oaks or Holland to be prophet for such a change. Just my personal opinion.
When higher-ups say they're a "special witness" some members think it's code to say they've seen Jesus. Do you think they actually mean it to indicate they've had the SA?
They mean you to think they have seen Jesus.
When you received the 2nd anointing, did you get the feeling that this is done fairly regularly? For example, did it seem like every temple has its own foot washing bowl and pitcher on standby?
What was your feeling of having your wife wash your feet? What was your feeling that she was asked to give you a blessing? Did you accept this well or did any of it come as a shock?
In general, was the entire second anointing all a complete "surprise" to you or did you have any inclination of the procedure that would be occuring? I'll be honest that in my TBM days I was made to believe the second anointing included a personal visit from Jesus, so I probably would have been expecting to see Jesus and not so much have my wife wash my feet or give me a blessing (although I am sure at the time it was very special and emotional)...
Thank you for your kind words and I am pleased you have found peace out of the church.
To answer your questions as best I can:- Most, if not all temples will probably have the bowls etc. and a room they use. I would guess it happens no more than twice a year, with say 5 couples at each.
My wife washing my feet and giving me a blessing was a very loving and 'spiritual' experience. (I prefer the word emotional rather than spiritual now).
The ordinance was a "surprise" and, yes I did expect to see Jesus, but not disappointed.
It is some years since I read the account of Ballard's father seeing Jesus. Though often mentioned as a visitation, if I remember correctly, it was actually a dream he had. Well many of us have had those. I can testify that Jesus has appeared to me in my dreams. I also scored goals for England's soccer team in my dreams.
No Ballard has never reached out to me although we had had a relationship and he highly commended me on some assignments I did for him. Actually none of the GAs 'reached out' to me. Two tried damage control with me, and obviously schooled my family in how ro treat an apostate so that they would not leave. The brethren do not reach out, they do damage control. Protect the interests of the church.
Yes, I am at peace.
I have attempted to edit the wikipedia article to include information about your experience, as shown here in this old version. The faithful have targeted the article as one to watch, and revert information they don't want widely known. Because it is a very secret ritual, the source material is thin in the modern age. There are journaled accounts from the nineteenth century, but do you know of any other modern source material that could be used to bolster the references for the wikipedia article?
No, it is a secret ordinance. The secrecy was stressed to me, not the sacredness.
The GAs will be dishonestly silent on the matter and rely on the apologists to deny it exists and defame anyone who claims otherwise.
If they wanted to disprove my account they could produce documentary evidence of where Ballard, Hillam, Peterson and the Preston Temple Presidency counsellor were on the date and time I mention. Simple enough, if they were somewhere else I must be lying. The reason the temple president was not there is because he was visiting his wife in hospital.
Pity about the wiki article. My account is repeatedly taken out as being an unreliable source, yet downright lies published by the church and its apologists are somehow 'credible'. I would swear under oath to any justice of the peace that my account is true. Would they be willing to perjure themselves by stating otherwise. I know wiki has to have rules about credible sources but this becomes ridiculous. Thanks for trying to correct it.
I appreciate your willingness to step out into the public sphere and speak openly about some of your interesting experiences. I understand that initially you did so hoping to salvage your family relationships, but it would seem that you have now transitioned to more of a mainstream activist role. What were the events that lead to that transformation? Were there any moments of hesitation? Any regrets? Thanks!
You are right that my main purpose was the hope that one day my family would see the light. John Dehlin and my girlfriend had to talk me into doing an interview. I was reluctant for 2 reasons (1) I did not want to go through the pain of answering John's questions and (2) I did not think anyone would be interested. I said to John surely we can do this in an hour maximum, but he used his interviewing skills to keep me for over 4 hours. About the same time I wrote to Elder Holland, hoping he would be honest. I copied my family on the letter expecting them to look objectively at my letter and any response he may send. I also told him that, as he had been so public in his assertions re the BoM, I would publish on the internet any response he chose to make. So, both of these, the JD interview and the Holland letter were shared with my family in the expectation they would view matters objectively. Instead it backfired on me. They resented me for doing this and even said my letter to Holland was a rant and his response to me was kind and gentle. This I still cannot understand as most observers see it the other way around. My letter was measured and objective as well as being respectful to him.
By contrast, he flipped and sent me a very disturbing rant, using his bully boy tactics. OK, then my reply to his response was a 'gloves off matter' and I asked him to put up or shut up.
When I finally accepted that my family will probably never change and they would continue to be cruel to me, I drew a breath. The nightmares about them ceased. At that time I just wanted to put Mormonism behind me. However, I had received so many emails and posts from people that had been hurt by the cult, that I decided to be actively involved on their behalf, because many pleaded with me.
I wrote "Romneys Religion - the Man who would be God" to let the world know the true doctrines of the Mormon Church, of which they should be aware when considering Mitt for POTUS.
Then I was approached by MT to become their managing editor after the David Twede (praise be to his name) fiasco.
I have also realised that much is being done to counter the lies of the church and many are leaving. I had mentioned some 4 years ago to a small number of people a particular project that would be a very serious issue that the church would find difficult, if not impossible, to spin. I thought one of those I mentioned it to would run with it but there were no takers. So, I decided in 2013 I would grasp the nettle and so was born that which some called the 'October Surprise'.
I have felt like walking away from the whole Mormonism issue as I have a great many other things in life that interest me. But whenever I get such thoughts, my heart is wrenched by someone sharing their personal story with me in an email or during a telephone conversation. Then I think they have to be stopped from causing such devastation. I am therefore willing to be part of a movement that will force the church to be honest. With honesty and transparency, people will be able to make their own decisions. If they choose to remain Mormon, so be it. But don't have them as members because they have been duped and lied to. Give them a chance.
My motivation is also for the rising generation. Those born in the church are conditioned and it can be difficult for them. I would like to see a stop to the brainwashing of youngsters. A child can grow up in say a Catholic family and be allowed to think for themselves. They can even disagree with the Pope, as many do on contraception. They can even stop being Catholics and they will not be shunned by their family, friends or community. A popular poster on another board had to leave a lucrative law practice after leaving Mormonism because his partners were Mormon. He lost a wife and a great job just to be honest. Thankfully he has succeeded in his own law firm and has a new wife. Happy ending but he still had to go through the pain and uncertainty of it all. He also devotes time to helping others transition. In fact he reached out to help me at one time in my journey. He gave me very sound advice and encouragement. I am grateful to him. In this community we all help one another and I will try to play my partas long as I can be of help. This would not happen if the church were honest and dropped its controlling, cult like methods.
Hopefully this explains what you asked of me. Your final question - any regrets? No regrets for discovering the truth, only wish it had happened earlier in my life, especially before whatever part I played in 'conditioning' my children and grandchildren.
Would I do anything differently? Undoubtedly, we can all benefit from hindsight.
I know it's been briefly mentioned before, but I'd like to hear your stance on the OW movement specifically. It seems to me that it's making the higher-ups really uncomfortable and creating a bit of a PR nightmare for them. Do you foresee this movement causing a schism within the church between the NOMs and the T(raditional)BMs? And can you make any assumptions about what the church officials will do to resolve this contention?
None of the brethren I know will allow this. Therefore it will either take a very long time or have to be imposed on them by legislation.
I was involved in getting a woman appointed as the director of the UK LDS Social Services corooration and that was quite a battle. No possibility of ordination though. It is too counter to the brethren's thinking and what they consider the scripture says on the matter. They have to die or be forced by legislation.
Neither are they accustomed to listening to NOMs on such important issues.
Warning - that is just my personal opinion which could be wrong. It is not gospel.
I would like to get more vocal about my disaffection but I am scared to because of the ramifications it may create with family and friends. But I see them in an apparent fraud and feel like I have responsibility to tell them. Do you have any regrets for being so upfront and open about your experiences?
No, my only regret is not being more forceful with them to discus the issues. I allowed them time which turned into years. I should have set a rime limit for a serious discussion within say 6-12 months. That should have been more than enough time for them to get over their initial shock and behave rationally, seeing that I was no monster. Instead I allowed them to abuse me for years until I could stand it no longer.
I am not alone in being treated in this way. I sadly hear of couples with young children whose TBM parents have severed connection with them. How sad that their only 'sin' like me is to tell the truth.
With hindsight, if it was inevitable for me to lose my family, it would have been better to get it over with in the first year than draw out the agony over 9 years. I also think the shorter time frame may have helped them focus on the real issues instead of thinking I had been deceived by Satan
Thanks for doing this. I am in the UK. I too am having my own familial battles at the moment, and wish that I hadn't been raised in this church. I am feeling so trapped it is unbelievable. As such I am sure you can understand the doubts in my programmed mind. I really think the church is not true, but have my few 'experiences' that cause me fear to doubt myself, so here is my question- You have mentioned your powerful BOM conversion on the train, as well as other faith promoting experiences. What do you do with those experiences, how do you view them now?
And am I right in presuming that you too have been through this mind/heart battle process that I am currently going through, and how has that evolved?
I struggled with this for a long time, about 6 months. All the evidence showed the church was not true, but how could I have received an answer from God on so many occasions and so many spiritual experiences that I 'Knew' the church was true.
Well, firstly I had to answer why would God tell me one thing all those years ago and now another. I was still fasting and praying and doing nothing to cause the spirit to withdraw from me. Then I revisited those experiences in my mind, with a better understanding of neuroscience and psychology. I also had to battle with the question of how many diverse people, of different faiths, 'knew' their version was true because of spiritual experiences and answers to their prayers. Experiences they were unable to explain, other than it was God or the spirit. Yet, as I listened to and read of their experiences, their conclusions as to what was true had very serious conflicts. This cannot be the same God or Spirit giving so many diverse opinions to their children. Theists will write PhD dissertations trying to resolve such issues. But really there is one simple answer that explains everything. Man is not made in God's image, but God is made in man's image. As I revisited my experiences I could then understand what was going on in my life emotionally and why I would react in such a way. Also, at the time of my conversion I did not have access to information about the church other than what I was told by the church or read from church approved books. Just think if you made all your decisions in life based on a biased viewpoint especially if that viewpoint turns out to be false.
Have you ever considered meeting with Dan Brown to give him some inside info for him to use in one of his books?
No I haven't. David Twede has written a Dan Brown type novel called 'The Second Anointing' which includes secret rituals and murder.
David should team up with Dan because David is a really good writer and he is expert on Mormonism. I'll let him know.
What are the incentives for top church leaders to keep the fraud up?
What kinds of special perks do they get?
What is the most incriminating thing that a higher up has ever said to you that is evidence that they are nonbelievers?
They have invested their lives in it, have large families and thousands who admire them. It is very seductive to certain types. They refuse to accept their life's work has been worthless, therefore they convince themselves it is for the good of the people. It was said to me "Tom, why throw it all away? Why lose your family and all the benefits you will receive in the future (referring to full time church service)". I did not realise at the time the reference to losing my family was a threat rather than advice and the other reference was a hidden bribe. I did not believe I would lose my family. After all, I knew them and their values. They would either agree with me the church was not true or kindly and lovingly show me where I had misunderstood. I did not know that church leaders would be behind my family's disaffection with me. What did i do wrong? Tell the truth. Only interest free forgiveable loans, generous expense account via church credit card, rock star treatment by members, free BYU education, a very good salary and pension that most members will never earn, free medical, book royalties, plus much more. Do they work for it? Sure they do. Those who think they have a cushy gig are not aware of the hours they put in, especially considering their ages. "Tom, the way I reconcile that...". Not the way I explain that, or this is what I believe but the way I reconcile that. Big message to me.
Are all Temple Presidents and General Authorities given the SA? I'm curious if my mission president received his SA as he was a Temple President after he came home.
I would think all temple presidents and GAs(not AAs) are given it. So your MP should have received it if he had previously been a temple president. Incidentally that is the opposite of what usually happens. It is usually MP then TP not the other way around. But obviously no hard and fast rules.
MPs do not receive it as a matter of course. I mentioned that one of those who received his at the same time I did, was a returning MP.
You mentioned that Ballard had some specific changes he'd like to pursue but is waiting for some of the older apostles to die first. What kind of changes does he (or others in senior leadership) have in mind?
You mentioned that the apostles are thoroughly vetted and have a "binding brotherhood." This is fascinating. Are there rituals tied to being elevated to an apostle? Do they collectively hold blackmail material on each other? Please tell us more about this if you can.
Re: the October Surprise - is this a matter of "if" or "when"? Is there any chance it could fall apart or are you onto something that you know is solid and just navigating the politics of the situation?
Ballard, at the time, was a maverick and wanted to see change. The culture among them is not about change, it is about conformity and obedience to the senior apostles. Ballard's desire for change was related to a demarcation of responsibilities between High Priests and Elders. Not happened to my knowledge so I assume he has fallen into the conformity role.
I do not believe they hold blackmail material on one another. Anything that would allow blackmail would also be a reason for them not to be an apostle. I have no specific knowledge of additional rituals, other than the SA.
Re 'October Surprise' I have always been, and still am, of the opinion it is "when" rather than "if". However, I am a mere mortal, not a prophet of God, so what do I know? I could be wrong but I doubt it.
I know that your family doesn't acknowledge your issues with the church, but have they at least maintained familial ties with you? Or are you disowned?
Can you speak to the reports of the mormon fuzz? Do they investigate, keep files on apostates? Are they trying to figure out who people who contribute to boards like this are? That you know of have you had personal contact them, before or after your disaffection? Elaborate.
Disowned because I refuse to live by their rules.
Yes they keep files and they try to find out who certain posters are. They hire ex FBI and CIA types for certain jobs. In my case, I have been open from the beginning. Although I posted about the SA under the name anointed one, I did say in that account that the FP would know it was me within 5 minutes of reading it. I was anonymous at that time for the sake of my family. Even then, my son was informed of the posting within days of it going up.
Is it true that you can't be excommunicated since you have had the second anointing? Do you thing church leaders would excommunicate you if they could?
You can be excommunicated after the SA. John D. Lee was for the horrendous massacre he was involved in. He also went through blood atonement by being shot for his murders. Later he was re-instated and all his blessings (including SA) and wives restored to him.
Church leaders have had 9 years to excommunicate me and not done so. Why not? They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I lived in Malta for 6 years which was their best opportunity and they didn't take it. Because Malta has just one branch belonging to an Italian mission, the mission president could have been directed to convene a kangaroo court and excommunicate me all by himself without and counsellors or assistants.
Now I live in a stake and that would require 17 men (high priests) to convene a court of love. Does the church really want those men exposed to the SA and all I have on the church?
As I say, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Anyway, what am I guilty of? Telling the truth? GBH was more guilty of apostasy than I in that he denied core doctrines of the church on national TV.
1.) In your opinion, why does the church spend so much time and effort in Europe when it has clearly been so unsuccessful? I'm Irish myself, and the church is tiny here despite what must be thousands of missionaries sent here over the years, and as far as I'm aware the situation is more or less the same elsewhere in Europe (minus perhaps the UK). Surely it's a net loss for Salt Lake?
2.) What percentage of the General Authorities do you think are believers? Personally I don't think Monson or Uchtdorf truly believe, but I'm not so sure when it comes to people like Packer, Bednar, Oaks etc., and have no clue what the seventies are like really.
3.) What was the biggest change for you regards leaving the church and your new, non-mormon life?
4.) I've read your exit story and know that the conflicts with science were big for you (as with me), so my question is: what is your single biggest issue with the church and the "gospel"?
(1) The brethren and Utah saints have ancestors from Europe. Also the tithing income in Europe will be higher than say Africa. (2) I used to think most of the 1st and 2nd Q of 70 were true believers. Any doubts they had would be put on the shelf because they would assume the apostles believed and that was good enough for them. Now, I think they just choose to believe as members are being counselled to do. That is, just believe because the church is good for you. No way do the top 15 believe any more in the foundational claims of the church and they know they are not 'special witnesses' in that they have not seen Christ. Monson is purely corporate. Oaks and Holland are smart enough to know it is not true, but lack the personal integrity to do what is right. They prefer to deceive others to perpetuate the myth. The Presiding Bishopric are corporate officers. Belief is an occupational requirement. To give a full answer I would have to go through them all one by one and give reasons, but I hope this will sufficefor your purpose. (3) A sudden loss of those I loved, family and close friends. TBMs don't (or won't) understand exmos and non Mormons do not understand what you go through. It is a lonely place and many of us question what our lives have been about. Feelings of worthlessness ensue. But, there is life after Mormonism and a very exciting life that can be. Reality is preferable to delusion in my book. Especially the judgemental, holier than thou, bigoted delusion of some (not all) Mormons. I am grateful for discussion boards such as this where we can talk to one another and be understood. (4) My biggest issue with the church is that they are 'conditioning' (dare I say 'brainwashing') young impressionable minds with a world view that is untrue and they (the leaders) know the church is not true. They are not well meaning men trying to do good. They are arch deceivers, willing to lie to perpetuate the fraud of Joseph Smith.
I remember reading your account and you saying that the SA was a very positive experience for you. How much did the knowledge of the SA contribute to you leaving? Was there another issue that contributed more to your loss of faith?
The SA did not contribute in any way to my leaving. In fact, it was such a "special" event I was even stronger in my faith (knowledge that the church was true).
My loss of faith occurred as a consequence of studying to help others (missionaries) to answer questions that would stop scientists from accepting the BoM. The first issue I looked at was the "no death before the Fall 6k years ago". I knew the church and BoM were true and this particular doctrine was taught throughout the church in Phd and RS when Joseph Fielding Smith was prophet. Therefore, science was wrong and I studied radio carbon dating and other methodologies.
Needless to say the science held up and the church re-affirmed to me that this was their official doctrine and science was wrong.
Along with this issue, I considered the global flood and all of us on earth being the progeny of 2 people (Adam and Eve) who became mortal just 6k years ago. Science was definitely winning over the revealed word of God.
Add in DNA and the Lamanites, the Book of Abraham and the historicity of the BoM and hey voila! Church not true. Even then I fasted and prayed two successive months about the BoA would you believe?
| What a silly, stupid, na‹ve move on your part Tom Phillips, you've played right into the hands of the church and given them exactly what I'm sure they've wanted you to give them. Here they spent millions of dollars on a slick advertising campaign in England last year and nary made a dent.then you went and did this... Now they get the double bonus of all of this free press and the opportunity to prove to the world that the church is true.
Drat, you've given their prophet a platform to prove to the entire world and the British people in particular that he talks to God and that the church alone holds the real truth in the world. Now they'll have the opportunity to show everyone that the Book of Mormon is in fact the most correct book on earth. That Amerindians did in fact descend from ancient Israelites. That Joseph could indeed translate ancient Egyptian papyri, that mankind descended from two humans 6,000 years ago. Do you even have any clue what you've done?
How na‹ve of you Tom, finally the church can present its truth claims to the British people in mass and prove once and for all that the Mormon church is everything it claims to be. Gawd Damit...do you have any idea what you've done to us?
This is a great day in the Mormon Church.and a very very bad day for those of us who lost belief despite all of the supporting evidence.which we have stubbornly refused to look at because of our desire to sin.
I can hear the cheers emanating from the Church Administration Building as we speak. "Our Prayers have been answered.Yippy for us we can finally prove the truth of our claims to the world in a court of law...glory be to God" I have no doubt that at this very moment President Monson is clearing his schedule, buying his plane tickets, pressing his best white shirt and doing his best touch down victory dance.
Did you even stop to think that President Monson has super magical priesthood powers at his disposal or that he can move mountains and call down fire from heaven, I rather doubt it.
If only you had had the forethought to think this thing through before you went ahead with this hair brained idea of yours...but Noooooo... you had to go ahead and play right in their hands and gave them the very platform they had been praying for for years.
Tom, you have set the non-believer movement back for years to come.once the church has this opportunity to prove their truth claims in court.everyone will want to join the church.
And I'm sure that President Monson can't wait to take HIS rightful place in the world media, his moment in the sun and take his rightful place...and turn world media away from that current media darling, the usurper and religious leader pretender in Rome.
Sorry Tom Phillips but you've played right into the hands of the church.what a dumb stupid move...You've given Monson every wet dream he's ever wanted on a silver plater...
| Secret Ritual Makes Prosecutor "Bulletproof" in Mormon Prophet Fraud Case?
Tom Phillips, a Mormon prosecuting the Mormon Prophet for fraud in UK, is claimed by some to be "bulletproof" against LDS Church retaliations because he received "a rare and secret ritual called the Second Anointing."
"Do not attempt in any way to discuss or answer questions about the second anointing." - LDS Church instruction manual.
On February 5, 2014, The
Telegraph (London, UK) reported that Mormon Thomas S. Monson, Executive of
the Corporation of The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, is ordered to appear before British magistrate's court amid claims that
the organization's teaching amounts to "fraud". By some
interpretation of LDS doctrine, the prosecutor Tom Phillips, also a Mormon, is
"bulletproof" against LDS Church retaliations because he received "a rare and
secret ritual called the Second Anointing."
Phillips, acting as private prosecutor in the case,
maintains that LDS President Monson committed fraud when he carefully groomed
and trained legions of young "salespeople", and sent them out to
spread demonstrable untruths among the British public in order to convert them
and pay money to Monson's corporation. Phillips argues the transactions depend
upon acceptance by individuals of certain "truth claims" which must
be received on the basis of partial information presented. According to his case,
Phillips claims the Fraud Act 2006 requires a legal duty to disclose known,
significant facts about a transaction where money will change hands if the
seller knows that those facts are significant enough to alter the buyer's
decision about the transaction. By failing to explain that there are
alternative viewpoints on some of the core teachings in the Mormon Church,
Monson, as Corporate Sole Owner and President, committed fraud every time it
converted a new member and took their money.
In their General Conference, an LDS General Authority taught: andnbsp; "if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing."
And this was similarly taught as an object lesson in their flagship publication Ensign,
December 2012 edition:andnbsp; "If paying
tithing means that you can't pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If
paying tithing means that you can't pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying
tithing means that you don't have enough money to feed your family, pay
tithing."
A requirement, according to worthiness questions asked in LDS temple interviews, is that you must "sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys." andnbsp;Also to "sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church." andnbsp;And finally to be "andnbsp;a full-tithe payer." andnbsp;Without meeting these obligations, you cannot receive ordinances (e.g., sacraments) that are required to enter the highest degree of heaven. andnbsp;Likewise, you cannot be married, see relatives married or attend to other family functions without sustaining the teachings of your prophet and paying a full tithing, defined as ten-percent of your total income. andnbsp;The fraud case connects the requirement to pay tithing to such benefits and that you are led into a belief in the Mormon system through false representations that can be proven false with modern science and history.
The Telegraph reports that the Westminster Magistrates Court
in London issued the summons in response to a filing by
Tom Phillips, an inactive Mormon who is the managing editor of MormonThink, a website that discusses
issues with Mormon Church history and doctrine. The LDS Church disciplined the
first two managing editors for apostasy, facing possible excommunication.
Phillips has managed the critical website for over a year but says he does not
face excommunication.andnbsp;
The reason Phillips does not appear to be pursued for excommunications seems to be because, as the previous
managing editor David Twede revealed, "Tom has received a bulletproof ordinance
called the Second Anointing from a Mormon apostle years before he stopped attending church."
According to the LDS
website, the Second Anointing is an "'unconditional guarantee' ...
that a person's actions have been fully approved, that 'there are no more
conditions to be met by the obedient person.' . he is `sealed up against all
manner of sin'."
Twede explains that "Tom could commit any sin-even
challenging Prophet Monson-and apparently they cannot do anything to him
because he is sealed to go into heaven no matter what he does."andnbsp;andnbsp;andnbsp;
The LDS Church did not comment on this ordinance. In an online
LDS instruction manual they prompt members: "Do not attempt in any way
to discuss or answer questions about the second anointing."
According to Phillips,
he is one of the very few people known to have received this secret ordinance
and then speak about it openly.
As such, Thomas Monson, brought up on fraud charges by
Tom Phillips, cannot discipline his member for challenging the prophet's
authority. This would become a showdown of Tom versus Tom in the UK Courts.
| Tom Phillips has received his Second Anointing - or - his Calling and Election Made Sure. He cannot be excommunicated nor can he resign from the Mormon Church. He is still a member.
There is another little known ceremony given by invitation from church leadership called the Second Anointing. In order to qualify for this anointing one must have proven him/herself worthy and already participated in the endowment ceremony.
LDS researcher David Buerger pointed out:
The higher ordinance was necessary to confirm the revealed promises of "kingly powers" (i.e., godhood) received in the endowment's initiatory ordinances. Godhood was therefore the meaning of this higher ordinance, or second anointing... (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1983, p. 21).
The couple receiving their second anointing were to go to the temple, and then dress in their temple robes. On December 26, 1866, LDS Apostle Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal:
I met with The Presidency and Twelve at President Youngs Office at about 12 oclok. The subject of the Endowments and 2d Anointings was presented when President Young said that the order of the 2n anointing was for the persons to be anointed to be cloathed in their Priestly robes the man upon the right hand and wife or wifes upon the left hand. The Administrator may be dressed in his usual Clothing or in his Priestly Robes as he may see fit. The meeting Should be opened by Prayer then the Administrator should Anoint the man A King and Priest unto the Most High God. Then he should Anoint his wife or wives Queens and Priestess unto her husband. (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, vol. 6, p.307)
On Jan. 11, 1846, Brigham Young and his wife received their second anointing. Part of their anointing reads:
Brother Brigham Young, I pour this holy, consecrated oil upon your head, and anoint thee a King and a Priest of the Most High God... for princes shall bow at thy feet and deliver unto thee their treasures; ...And I seal thee up unto Eternal Life,...And thou shalt attain unto [the] Eternal Godhead... that thou mayest... create worlds and redeem them; so shall thy joy be full...
Elder Heber Chase Kimble then anointed Mary An Young, a Queen and Priestes unto her husband (Brigham Young) in the Church...Sister Mary Ann Young, I pour upon thy head this holy, consecrated oil, and seal upon thee all the blessings of the everlasting priesthood, in conjunction with thy husband: and I anoint thee to be a Queen and Priestess unto thy husband,... inasmuch as thou dost obey his counsel;... And I seal thee up unto Eternal Life, thou shalt come forth in the morning of the first resurrection and inherit with him all the honors, glories, and power of Eternal Lives, and that thou shalt attain unto the eternal Godhead, so thy exaltation shall be perfect,... (Book of Anointings, as quoted in The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, by David John Buerger, Smith Research Associates, 1994, pp. 88-90)
Originally, this ceremony seemed to be a guarantee of godhood. Mr. Buerger observed:
Because of the strict confidentiality surrounding second anointings, it is unclear precisely what long-term effect they had on recipients nor, for that matter, the degree to which the conferral of godhood was held to be conditional or unconditional. Most early nineteenth-century statements imply that the ordinance was unconditional. (The Mysteries of Godliness, p.112-3)
Today, the church leaders seem to be minimizing the importance of the second anointing and refer to it as a "special blessing" but not necessary for exaltation (godhood) (see The Mysteries of Godliness, p.165). The official LDS magazine Ensign, March 2002, p.18, emphasized the necessity of the endowment (as opposed to the second anointing) for "eternal exaltation." The article went on to state: "Obedience to the sacred covenants made in temples qualifies us for eternal life..." According to Mormonism, a person's endowment and temple marriage starts one on the road to godhood (DandC 132:20 - "Then shall they be gods"). While some Mormons emphasize that the word "gods" in the revelation is not capitalized, editions prior to 1900 have it capitalized. Also an official statement of the LDS First Presidency used the capitalized form, and declared that man's ultimate goal was to evolve "into a God." (Ensign, Feb. 2002, p. 30)
Joseph Smith taught that men had the capacity to achieve Godhood and rule their own planets. He also taught that our God was originally a mortal who achieved Godhood under the direction of another God. (see History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 305-6, 474) While Mormons say they worship only one God, they believe there are countless Gods in the universe.
| For anyone interested, Tom Phillips and I are going to be discussing his recent legal action toward LDS Church President Thomas Monson live on the Drew Marshall radio show this Saturday, at High Noon, Pacific Coast Time (3 PM Eastern time). The show is also broadcast live online, so anyone interested can listen through the website:
http://drewmarshall.ca/
Whatever happens in the future with this legal action, Tom has already made international waves. I'm eager to ask him about it, as is Drew.
| Details Of Criminal Fraud Case Against Monson And Co-Provided By Tom Phillips
Tuesday, Feb 11, 2014, at 08:05 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: THOMAS PHILLIPS -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | DETAILS OF CRIMINAL FRAUD CASE AGAINST MONSON and CO-provided by Tom Phillips
*Introduction
The following is based on a series of extensive communications between Tom Phillips and myself, regarding the issuance of summonses to Mormon Church president Thomas S. Monson, ordering him to appear in UK Magistrates' Court on 14 March 2014 to answer charges against him and the Mormon Church of criminal financial fraud. The following information has been thoroughly reviewed for accuracy by Phillips, approved by him and is provided here with his full and express knowledge and permission. Tom, in fact, has so affirmed with his statement that this summary has been "[c]ompiled by Steve Benson for my approval/amendment." Immense thanks and appreciation to Tom for his efforts.
*Operational Aspects of the UK Justice System
During the course of his case, Phillips has had extensive and direct contact with the UK legal system, as it has made its way through the country's Magistrates' Courts.
By way of description, a Magistrates' Court is similar, in general concept, to a US grand jury. Even so, despite the grand jury system having been inaugurated in England a few hundred years ago, the grand jury has since been abandoned by most countries except the US.
A Magistrates' Court Is limited in sentencing powers, with the authority to impose on the convicted up to 12 months in prison. In the UK legal system, a Crown Court is a higher court than a Magistrates' Court and is authorized to hand down stiffer sentences.
All criminal proceedings commence in the lower Magistrates' Courts. A Magistrates' Court judge determines if there are grounds for a case to proceed. The judge for the Westminster Magistrates' Court issued the summons for Monson to appear to answer charges of criminal financial fraud. This Court is the senior Magistrates' Court in the UK, and handles such issues as terrorism, major fraud and extradition.
Phillips anticipated that the judge would rule as he had hoped--and it did. Phillips notes that the Magistrates' Court ruled in favor of 90% of what Phillips asked to be part of the summons.
*Phillips Time-Line Dealings with the UK Magistrates' Courts
Phillips is of the view that his dealings with the Magistrates' Court system should have taken only a few days but, instead, extended out to almost four months. He made his written submissions to the Court on 10 October 2013 and attended an oral hearing before the District Judge at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 15 October 2013. The Court's legal advisers went through Philips' legal submissions on 15 October 2013.
Rulings and discussions about the service of summons continued until the District Magistrates' Court issued its summonses to Monson on 31 January 2014. The process of deliberation leading up to the Court's decision to authorize the summonses involved the judge putting every conceivable defense on behalf of Monson to Phillips. The judge conducted a very detailed assessment of the evidence backing up the allegations made by Phillips. Why the process took so long is unclear, although Phillips has his private opinions on this. He suspects there may have been procedural Interference attempted by the Mormon Church, which might help account for the fact that it took him over three months to get the case filing through the lower UK Magistrates' Court to the point of the summonses being issued to Monson.
Phillips was concerned that Monson may have already known that something was brewing. He noted, for example, that arguments put to Phillips by a Clerk to the Justices (before Phillips finally prevailed in getting the Court to issue its summons) contained legalistic-sounding use of English vernacular concerning matters of arrest warrants and summonses that sounded, to Phillips, like they could have perhaps been provided by Mormon Church legal advisors.
Phillips was eventually notified by the Magistrates' Court that the summons had been signed off on by the District judge. The summons was sent out to Monson from the UK via first-class post.
*Details of the Summons
The summons requires Monson to appear, in person, in Westminster Magistrates' Court on 14 March 2014 at 10 a.m., for the purpose of Monson answering seven specific charges of false representation by the Mormon Church (as listed in the summons), which are said to be in contravention of Section 1 of the Fraud Act of 2006.
If Monson fails to appear, the Court may issue a warrant for Monson's arrest. Monson's appearance will be in the Court venue where initial evidence is produced and the charges are read out. The actual trial will not begin on 14 March 2014 but sometime thereafter as determined by the appropriate Court (almost certainly Southwark Crown Court).
The maximum time permitted under UK law for defendants to appear in Magistrates' Court to answer a summons is six weeks. In Monson's case, the maximum-allotted time of 6 weeks is being allowed because:
1) Monson is presently in the US;
2) Monson needs to make travel arrangements for his summons appearance in UK Court; and
3) UK-to-US postal delays may play in communication with the defendants.
The Magistrates' Court judge will almost certainly refer the case to the Crown Court for the setting of an actual trial date by its judge. Monson's case will most likely be assigned by the Magistrates' Court to the Crown Court which, if the trial results in a conviction, can impose a heavier sentence than the Magistrates' Court. The case may also end up in Crown Court because of its sheer magnitude.
On the other hand, the Magistrates' Court could actually set the date for trial itself and hear evidence in its own court. It could conceivably find Monson guilty, then refer the case to the Crown Court for sentencing because the Magistrates' Court has concluded that Monson deserves harsher punishment that only the Crown Court can order.
In the British system of justice, a defendant has various pre-trial options, including:
1) the right to ask for a trial by jury;
2) the right to ask for a trial by the Magistrates' Court (In most criminal cases, defendants are likely to be convicted by a judge, not by a jury; therefore, a jury may be seen by the defendant as being more sympathetic to his or her interests); and
3) the right to avoid trial by pleading guilty to the judge beforehand.
*Specific Mormon Church Targets of the Criminal Fraud Charges
Mormon Church president Thomas S. Monson and the Mormon Church's Corporation of the President (COP) are the initial defendants in this Court filing. Plans are to eventually expand the case beyond Monson as Mormon Church president (i.e., the Corporate Sole), by bringing charges against the entire high command of the Mormon Church- comprised of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.
*Legal Elements of the Case of Criminal Fraud Being Brought Against Monson and the Mormon Church
Phillips provided a copy of the UK Fraud Act of 2006 to the Magistrates' Court judge, in which he highlighted areas of that law that are relevant to his case. (Even judges have tended not to be aware of certain parameters of the Fraud Act of 2006).
Under the Fraud Act of 2006, a false representation is any statement or representation that is either untrue or misleading. (UK. laws on fraud were recently modernized, due in large measure as a response to the problem of widespread Internet fraud. The Fraud Act of 2006 was enacted to update those fraud laws).
The axis of the criminal fraud case against Monson is as follows:
1) Untrue statements have been dishonestly made by the Mormon Church with the intent to accrue financial gain for the Mormon Church and cause a financial loss to others.
2) A person who dishonestly makes false representations with the intent of financial gain for oneself and/or for others; or who causes financial loss, or exposure of others to financial loss, is guilty of committing criminal fraud under the Fraud Act of 2006. By definition, the term "false representation" refers to anything that is "untrue" or "misleading."
3) The Fraud Act of 2006 does not preclude the introduction of religious arguments into a case; nevertheless, one does not need to delve into the doctrine of religious arguments in order to successfully make the case of criminal fraud against the Mormon Church.
4) Monson must prove in Court that his representations were true and, if he can do so, he is then required to prove they were not misleading. This is an impossible barrier for Monson to overcome, given that 12 jurors--with the statistical probability being that not one of them will be a Mormon--are unlikely to find any credibility in such claims by Monson.
5) Disproving, in Court, various false statements made by the Mormon Church requires providing factual refutation of those statements. This refutation is not about attacking the Mormon religion on its core religious doctrines. Religious claims may, themselves, not be testable in Court; however, empirical facts can be tested in Court. If those proven facts serve to undermine Mormon Church religion doctrine, that will be a consequence for some. Again, an essential point of the case is that issuance of the summons to Monson is not a personal attack on Monson or on the Mormon Church's religious arguments. To the contrary, it is a legal action brought against Monson by British courts because of acts committed by Monson in violation UK fraud law, which could lead to Monson's conviction.
In making his case for a filing of criminal fraud charges against Monson, Phillips listed seven specific statements of fact which demonstrate that the Mormon Church has made false representations in categorically claiming that certain things have actually happened which did not happen and/or are not true.
Among these demonstrations of false representation are two, in particular:
--1) The Book of Abraham was translated from ancient Egyptian papyri by Joseph Smith (as relating to Mormon Church "truth" claims that the Book of Abraham is claimed to be the handwritten autobiographical account of Abraham, penned by Abraham himself.
Proving that this is a false representation by Monson and the Mormon Church is not an attack on the religious doctrine, per se, as found in its canonized Book of Abraham (even though one can assert there are falsehoods contained therein, as well as heinous doctrines); rather, what is being legally challenged is the claim made in the Book of Abraham's introductory statement that it (the Book of Abraham) was produced as result of direct translation by Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith from ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics.
In an effort to get around its false representation, the Mormon Church is now claiming that Smith did not literally translate the Book of Abraham parchments from actual ancient Egyptian characters. Instead, the Mormon Church is claiming that Smith used those parchments only as a "catalyst" to facilitate an "inspired" translation that was not dependent on what was actually written on the papyri.
In actuality, the Book of Abraham (contrary to what it claims in its introduction), is not an account personally written by the ancient Israelite prophet Abraham by Abraham's own hand up on papyri but, rather, is a common funerary text from the Egyptian Book of the Dead--of which there are many in existence and which have been accurately translated by professional Egyptologists. Phillips has personally seen such original Egyptian funerary texts in museums in Birmingham and London, England.
Even pro-Mormon Egyptologists have acknowledged that, contrary to Mormon Church truth claims, the Book of Abraham is not an actual translation from ancient Egyptian of Abraham's life but, instead, the Book of Abraham is falsely represented to have been translated from papyri that are, in reality, from Egyptian Book of Dead, with no relation to at all Abraham's life and not written by Abraham.
--2) No physical death of any kind (human, animal etc.) occurred on Earth prior to 6,000 years ago (as relating to Mormon Church "truth" claims made about two people, Adam and Eve, were immortal before they sinned, thereafter becoming mortal and being cast out of the Garden of Eden).
In the event that the case goes to trial, the central issue of false representations having been made by the Mormon Church will demonstrated through:
a) the Mormon Church's canonized scriptures;
b) sermons by Mormon Church leaders delivered at its General Conferences and
c) current or recent official teaching manuals and other official Mormon Church publications.
Evidence that these Mormon Church representations are, in fact, demonstrably false will be provided by statements introduced at trial from experts in biology, Egyptology and anthropology (with, for instance, the latter dealing with the Mormon Church claim of whether Native Americans actually descended from a single family that left Jerusalem in 600 B.C.).
Initially, the District Magistrates' Court judge assumed that Thomas S. Monson was an honest man; however, Phillips' position was that Monson and the Mormon Church had acted dishonestly. (Phillips has examples of other Mormon Church leaders lying, naming, for instance, Mormon Church General Authorities Dallin Oaks, Jeffrey Holland and Paul Dunn, which prove that the Mormon Church has a history of lying).
*Named Victims in the Criminal Fraud Action Against the Mormon Church
Two specific individuals were asked to submit written statements in December 2013, in behalf of the case. In order to be named as victims, they were required to agree to attend Court proceedings in order to give evidence against the Mormon Church. The issued summons is actually two summonses--one for each of these named victims. One of these individuals was born into Mormon Church, and as a Mormon bishop left Mormon Church in 2011, in his 40s. The other individual converted to the Mormon Church in his 20s and left the Mormon Church in his middle years after accepting statements presented to him as true, are in fact not true and the Mormon Church knows they are not true.
Because Monson has now been served with these summonses, the names of these two individuals are a matter of public record. (To read their explanation as to why they agreed to join the case, see: "Joint Statement Concerning Summonses Served on Thomas Spencer Monson," by Steve Bloor and Chris Ralph, 7 February 2014, at: http://journeyofloyaldissent.wordpres...)
The District judge wished to restrict legal action to these two individuals who have joined the case.
Phillips, on the other hand, wanted one summons to cover all the victims, including the 180,000 individuals that the Mormon Church claims as its members residing in England and Wales. (The UK Treasury is also included as a victim for having lost tax revenue due to Mormon Church financial fraud). Phillips thought this approach of issuing a summons in behalf of the UK's Mormon Church membership was the proper route, noting that the Magistrates' Court judge agreed with him as to the tenets of the Fraud Act of 2006. The British Home Office (comparable to the US Department of Justice) produced its own written interpretation of the Fraud Act of 2006, in which it concluded that violation of the Act does not require naming victims; rather, a criminal act is committed when one publishes untrue information if the intent is to make money, even if no money is made or lost by anyone. Phillips had wanted the wording of the summons amended so as not to have restricted it to the two named individuals but acceded to the judge's request in order to avoid even more delay. The judge made that decision as a personal judgment of the Court, after admitting that it was not legally necessary, but it was imposed by the judge as a matter of judicial discretion.
The judge's decision requiring named victims meant Phillips was then faced with two options:
1) accept the judge's decision for named victims; or
2) apply for a judicial review of the decision to the High Court, which would have taken an additional three months.
Phillips told a Court lawyer that he (Phillips) would not, in any practical sense, be able to get additional witness statements from others who may have wanted to join the summons if Phillips was not allowed to tell them what the contents of the summons. The Court lawyer told Phillips that the Court had no problem with Phillips informing others about the nature of the case and the summons. The Court did not impose conditions of silence on Philips, with the Court lawyer indicating having no problem with him (Phillips) sending copies of the summons to other people, en masse. (Phillips sent a copy of the draft summons to the two aforementioned named litigants, prior to the District judge's signature, as their names would ultimately be made public). He could have sent out more summons (some 100-plus) for additional named victims to join in the filing but did not want to do so out of concern that those being told would not be able to keep it confidential. Phillips was legally allowed by the Court to say that the summons had been issued since he is acting in this case as private prosecutor, and could therefore state publicly that litigants are taking action or seeking prosecution. Ultimately, because Phillips did not want further delay, he decided not to appeal the judge's decision to name specific victims.
*The UK Treasury is a Victim of Mormon Church Acts of Criminal Financial Fraud Involving the Mormon Church's Collection of Tithes
First, note should be made of the Mormon Church's status as a charity under UK law. Per the administration of that law, a Charities Commission is assigned the responsibility of establishing basic "badges" by which a given group can be legally designated as a charitable organization. The badges have since been expanded to cover seven categories.
Two of those badges include:
1) religion; and
2) relief of poverty
In the past, it was assumed that if one was both "God-fearing" and a religion, then it was a given that the religion involved was for "public benefit." But, under present UK law, this is no longer the case. Under Charities Commission requirements, a religion must demonstrate that it exists for "public benefit." A recent ruling from the English High Court declared that even the state-established Church of England is no long automatically assumed to be a "public benefit." It is required under Charity Commission regulations to make the case that it exists for "public benefit"-meaning that it can no longer claim that because it is a religion, it is for "public benefit."
Whether the Mormon Church actually serves as a "public benefit" in Great Britain is a matter for serious consideration, given how Mormon Church criminal financial fraud has victimized the UK Treasury.
The following example illustrates that fact:
When UK citizens pay tithing to the Mormon Church, they receive tax relief from the British government. For instance, when a British citizen pays $100.00 in the form of a charitable donation to the Mormon Church, $80.00 of that amount is paid to the Mormon Church directly from the Mormon Church member making the donation. The remaining $20.00 is paid directly by the British government to the Mormon Church, with that amount coming to the Mormon Church from the British government out of taxes which were paid by the donor to the UK government. In other words, based on British tax rates, 20% of the charitable contribution is first deducted and goes to the British government. The UK citizen pays 80% of their charitable donation to the Mormon Church, with the British government paying the remaining 20% to Mormon Church.
In the time period that the Fraud Act of 2006 has been in effect, the total tithing paid by Mormon citizens of the UK to the Mormon Church has amounted to approximately $300 million. This constitutes a financial gain to the Mormon Church. Included in that Mormon Church income figure is tax relief upwards of $60 million. The Mormon Church would not have received that financial gain if its members had not been induced to give tithing to the Mormon Church based on false claims made by the Mormon Church.
The Mormon Church operates a tithe-collecting company in the UK, which serves as its "charitable" arm. This company is registered with the UK Charities Commission as a charity, and is organized under the name of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Great Britain]." It is the main company incorporated in England by the Mormon Church and is assigned the role of receiving tithes from UK members of the Mormon Church. (Phillips says he could have, if he had so chosen, sought legal redress from this UK-based company).
The financial gains made by the Mormon Church through its collection of tithes--which are generated through intentional false representation of its "truth" statement-- therefore constitute acts of criminal fraud committed by Mormon Church against both individual UK citizens and the UK Treasury.
*Fear of Revenue Loss is an Incentive for the Mormon Church to Make False Representations
If the Mormon Church admitted its religious statements were untrue, many people would not pay tithing; hence, creating a significant reduction in income for the Mormon Church.
As a personal example, Phillips says that in his personal conversion to Mormonism, false statements were made to him by Mormon Church missionaries, including that God had spoken to Joseph Smith. Nonetheless, Phillips initially believed this and other Mormon Church claims to be true, joined the Mormon Church and commenced paying tithing. When he discovered that these religious statements made by the Mormon Church were not true, he discontinued paying tithing--as many others have done, as well.
A case where such a phenomenon has occurred involves another church which today operates under the name of the Community of Christ (originally known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or RLDS]. When the RLDS admitted that it had made untrue religious statements, it experienced loss of both membership and tithing income. The Mormon Church knows that if it (the Mormon Church) acknowledges that it, too, has made untrue religious statements, it would suffer the same financial repercussions as experienced by RLDS.
*Possible Consequences for Monson and the Mormon Church if Monson is Found Guilty
The summons is legally defined as being criminal, not civil, in nature. Therefore, if Monson is found guilty under UK fraud law, that means that a crime (i.e., in US terms, a felony) has been committed. This crime is punishable by fine, imprisonment or both.
In order to avoid conviction, Monson's lawyers must convince a British jury (with no Mormons likely impaneled on the jury) that Monson's false representations are true--and that Monson (a recipient of an MBA degree and other honorary degrees, and the owner of four universities/colleges) was unaware that, although he may himself believe the statements to be true, these representations might actually be untrue or misleading.
Due to the financial magnitude of the fraud (amounting to as much as $300 million in criminally-procured tithing money), Monson, if convicted, will almost certainly be given a prison sentence. (As noted, there are currently seven counts of fraud, with the maximum custodial sentence for each being 10 years).
Facing this potential outcome, a recommendation is that Monson appear as summoned by the British Court and there, at his first opportunity, plead guilty. This approach would save Monson and the Mormon Church further embarrassment by avoiding an unnecessary and lengthy public trial, during which the truthfulness of statements made by the Mormon Church and its leaders would be subjected to intense, open and critical examination. Moreover, if Monson took this advised route, the punishment imposed would probably be more lenient than if he refused to admit guilt.
The best advice for Monson would, therefore, be that his attorneys ask the Court for application of mitigating circumstances--meaning that Monson would contend that he was not aware of UK law on matters of criminal fraud. Monson's rationale would be that his legal advisers were not expert in areas of said law and, therefore, that the Mormon Church should only pay a fine, with any sentence being deferred (provided no other wrongdoing was thereafter committed by Monson during a given period of time).
It is unlikely, however, that the Mormon Church will follow this option. Instead, the Mormon Church will probably fight the criminal fraud charges because it is inherently misguided and believes it is right.
Another possibility for dealing with the looming potentialities of this case is for the Mormon Church to attempt having the fraud charges delayed or dismissed though an appeal to the High Court in London. However, in order to convince the High Court to grant a delay, the Mormon Church would have to claim that the issuance of the summons was irrational. This would then require the Mormon Church to prove that the issuance of the summons was, in fact, irrational. It is unlikely that such an argument would prevail, given that that District Judge seriously weighed the evidence for the fraud charges during a period of three months, during which time she put to Phillips every conceivable argument that could be made in defense of Monson--thereby demonstrating rationality on the part of the judge.
The risk run by the Mormon Church is that if Monson pleads not guilty but is found guilty, $300 million dollars will have therefore been determined to have been fraudulently gained by the Mormon Church (accrued from 1 January 2007, the inauguration date of Fraud Act of 2006), and the Mormon Church will be made to pay the piper.
A Magistrates' Court lawyer has suggested other possible actions that could be taken against Monson and the Mormon Church.
These actions could involve following:
1) compensation, in which case the Mormon Church would be ordered by the Court to pay back to designated victims all the personal tithing that these victims have given to Mormon Church; and
2) a confiscation order, in which case those convicted would not be allowed to benefit from the proceeds of their crimes (with, for instance, the Court ordering the freezing of Mormon Church assets. The Mormon Church holds millions of dollars in land and buildings in the UK).
The possibility also exists that other first-world countries (such as Canada, Australia and Sweden) may be looking at charging Mormon Church with financial fraud. If such is the case, then perhaps an aggrieved person in the U.S. may decide to pursue the case, as well, given that US law is based on English law (including the grand jury concept, which was established by the English in the 16thcentury).
Finally, even if Monson wins the case, he would certainly lose in the eyes of the public. A Magistrates' Court lawyer has noted that once the actual hearing commences (meaning that when Monson is summoned to appear in UK court to answer charges of criminal fraud), reporters will be present every day in the courtroom looking for stories. In the event that the case ultimately goes to trial, the Court's proceedings would become a matter of widespread public record, combined with intense public interest--with the UK press immediately breaking reports of the trial for consumption in London and around the world.
*Grounds, through US Federal Law, for Filing Criminal Fraud Case Against Mormon Church in US
This case against the Mormon Church, as it is being pursued under the UK Fraud Act of 2006, is seen as a possible stepping-stone to a RICO case against the Mormon Church in the US. "RICO" stands for "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act." RICO is described as "a federal law designed to combat organized crime in the United States. It allows prosecution and civil penalties for racketeering activity performed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. Such activity may include illegal gambling, bribery, kidnapping, murder, money laundering, counterfeiting, embezzlement, drug trafficking, slavery and a host of other unsavory business practices. To convict a defendant under RICO, the government must prove that the defendant engaged in two or more instances of racketeering activity and that the defendant directly invested in, maintained an interest in, or participated in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce."
("Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [RICO]," at: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...: for further information on the definItion of RICO, along with explanations of the law's prohibited activities, civil and criminal penalties, venues and processes, evidence, etc., see: "18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS," at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/tex... )
UK laws were modernized in response to the growing problem of Internet fraud and have some similarity to RICO laws in the US. Phillips' UK case is one said to "cut our teeth on," because issues such as fraud and tax evasion may be elements for future legal action undertaken against the Mormon Church in the US under RICO--with a UK conviction of Monson possibly laying the groundwork for prosecution of Monson and the Mormon Church. Under RICO, if two felonies are committed in any 10-year period, victims are entitled to compensation of three times amount of monies lost due to the fraud perpetrated against them.
*Possible Mormon Church Defenses Against Charges of Criminal Fraud
1) Monson's probable belief that Mormon theology is true does not constitute a legal basis for defense by the Mormon Church because the Mormon Church is acting dishonestly with regard to "truth" claims that are demonstrably false.
2) Certain legal experts in Britain have opined that the criminal fraud case pending against Monson has no chance of succeeding. Some critics have, for example, maintained that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would take control of the case and proceed to shut it down.
It is more complicated than that. Once the case becomes known to the Crown Prosecution Service, it has three options:
a) It can take over the case and prosecute it themselves;
b) It can not take over the case and, instead, allow the designated private prosecutor (Phillips) to proceed with prosecuting the case himself; or
c) It can take over the case and shut it down.
Below are responses to the above three options:
a) If the CPS takes over the case for its own prosecution, Phillips would incur no personal financial burden in that prosecution.
b) If the CPS grants permission for Phillips to privately prosecute the case, he would then set about to raise money to pay for legal assistance.
c) If the CPS decides to shut down the case, such a decision would depend on successfully meeting the following two tests:
--the likelihood of the conviction of Monson; and
--whether any public benefit exists to allowing case to proceed.
The CPS, it is argued, will not be able to pass these two tests. At any rate, the CPS cannot shut down the case without first conferring with Phillips. In the meantime, Phillips has consulted with a British legal firm that informs him they will be able to stop CPS from taking over and shutting down the case.
3) Defenders of the Mormon Church assert that its collection of tithes is not a fraudulent operation because faithful Mormon members voluntarily give their tithes to the Mormon Church.
When Phillips approached two leading UK law firms with his criminal fraud case against Monson, their initial response was that involving religious doctrine in Monson's case was not permissible because Mormon Church members, by their own choice, pay tithes. It took several hours to convince these firms that in the Mormon Church, tithing is actually not voluntary. After listening to the facts of the case, the firms agreed that there was a strong case to be made against the Mormon Church for committing crimes of financial fraud, and indicated a willingness to take the case all the way to trial.
4) Certain critics of the legal action taken against the Mormon Church have publicly cited the British case of "Singh v. Singh" as a supposed rebuttal to Phillips' claim of Mormon Church criminal fraud.
That assertion prompted this response from Phillips:
"I have . . . looked up [a] `Singh v. Singh' case and . . . can see no relevance to the Fraud Act [of] 2006. . . . The District Judge would never have issued the summons unless they were convinced there was a case to answer . . . I have since found another case by the name of `BCA v. Singh,' which may have been the one the lawyer was referring to. This case was decided one way in the High Court and reversed in the Court of Appeal. The controversy led to a new Act of Parliament in 2013 to clarify matters. I still do not understand how this case and subsequent legislation undermines mine. . . . . An excerpt [from this second case] is `and new statutory defenses of truth and honest opinion are also part of the key areas covered by the new law.' Note the words ` . . . truth and honest opinion . . . `
"Monson's defense would have to be truthful and honest. The allegations are about the truthfulness of certain factual statements that can be tested in court, by expert witnesses (Egyptologists, biologists, etc.), Monson's defense would have to be truthful and honest. The allegations are about the truthfulness of certain factual statements that can be tested in court, by expert witnesses (Egyptologists, biologists etc.)."
*The Mormon Church Cannot Afford for This Case to Go to Trial
The Mormon Church, because of its fear over the criminal charges filed against it, is (as predicted) attempting to kill the fraud case it is now facing-- at least killing it in minds of its members by:
1) inoculating faithful Mormon with the LDS Church's own spin once the summons became made publicly known to the outside world; and
2) attempting to discredit Phillip's personal character, as the Mormon Church has done with previous critics-by attacking the messenger rather than addressing the issues.
*The Prediction that the Mormon Church-Owned "Deseret News" Would Minimize the Case in Its Coverage
Concern as been expressed that once the story broke on the Monson summons, the "Deseret News" would do a dismissive, misdirect puff-piece attacking Monson's accusers as being bitter ex-Mormons. That prediction has proven to be correct.
*The Prediction that the UK Press Would Provide Wide Coverage of the Summons Story
It was anticipated that the story would spread quickly through the UK press. That, too, has proven to be correct.
*The Mormon Church's Legal Ineptitude with Regard to Its Unawareness of the Laws of Other Countries
Phillips has dealt with the Mormon Church around the world and points out that the laws of other nations apply to Mormon Church activities in those nations and not according to US law.
The Mormon Church's legal aides have, in other cases, appointed local attorneys and then too often relied on what they these parties say. There have been cases, for instance. of local attorneys/solicitors being completely wrong in their advice to the Mormon Church in countries such as Sierra Leone, the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Some local law firms (particularly in some African countries) see a cash cow in these Mormon Church efforts , where retained local legal assistance does not know the laws of the nations in which the Mormon Church is attempting to litigate its religious interests.
*The Desired Focus of Phillips' Legal Action Against the Mormon Church
Phillips wishes for focus to remain on UK law-based issues of:
1) Mormon Church misrepresentation of its "truth" statements;
2) criminal fraud committed by the Mormon Church for its purposes of financial gain,; and
3) loss to both UK citizens of their personal revenue and the UK Treasury of its tax revenue because of these fraudulent acts and misrepresentations of fact criminally committed by the Mormon Church..
*Meanwhile, Religious Belief and Practice are Declining throughout Europe
Europe has had it "up to its neck" with religion and, as a result, is throwing off the shackles of religion. Religion itself is basically "down" (meaning losing viability and influence) in secular Europe.
In that steady process, the Mormon Church is dead in the UK--or at least dying a slow death.
| On the whole, I would say that I am not supportive of Tom Phillips' legal action against President Monson. At this point, I don't give his case or his motivations further credit because Mormonism has lots of problems and Tom found a magistrate who would sign off on his summons. I don't believe that theology is the job of the courts, and that money procured by theological claims is fraud, especially when most of the claims are rooted in events that allegedly occurred before 1845.
That said, I pause before saying that this is all a pointless exercise. For years I have been obsessed with the issue of the implications on the form of the LDS Church and its existence as a church. Back in the late 19th century, the Mormon Church changed its form to conform to the demands of the US government and New York bankers. As time has progressed, the LDS Church has become increasingly corporate in structure and commodified in the way it interacts with its membership.
A symbolic bridge was crossed, when President Monson presided over the opening ceremony of the City Creek Mall. On that day, the Mormon prophet issued a general invitation to shop at the LDS Church's lavish new temple to consumption: "Let's go shopping!"
To this day, I haven't recovered. Regardless of one's belief or disbelief, one ought to take pause at this situation. And it just may be that the summons is the other shoe dropping. Having trod so far into mercantile and corporate territory; having presented itself as a product and engaged in selling the products of the world to others; the LDS Church may now be policed like any other corporation. The claim of being a religion may no longer protect it.
So, as much as I chafe at the summons and lack a certain measure of sympathy and understanding for Tom Phillips, I can't help but wonder whether this was a strong possibility because of the LDS Church's evolution as a corporation with vast holdings, political interests and influence, and special privileges as a church. Tom Phillips' legal action, at the very least, should be taken as opportunity to reconsider whether a church can be a corporation in the sense the LDS Church is, without losing its soul (and religious privileges).
I think the problem is to be found in the very roots of Mormonism itself. Business has always been in the mix. The temporal and spiritual were never separate doctrinally. When the Kingdom of Deseret ceased to be a viable goal, however, and the LDS Church sought to accommodate itself to its new home in the United States, a number of compromises had to be made, which increasingly separated Mormons from the temporal part of the "kingdom." What did not change, however, was the very temporal focus of the organization itself. So, while the Church has never abandoned the temporal kingdom, its interactions with the members have been increasingly schizophrenic on this point. The temporal kingdom goes on behind closed doors, while the spiritual kingdom is what most members encounter in church.
Of course, the two sides come together in tithing, fast offerings, and service, but even this temporal side of the spiritual is treated in a predominantly spiritual way. At the same time, the corporation continues the legacy of the temporal kingdom which has much to do with stock in Pepsi and ranch property in Florida. The members do not see or deal with this at all. It was City Creek that smacked many members in the face like a cold, wet hand. Suddenly, the members saw what the leaders were dealing with on a daily basis: the side of the Kingdom of God that had deals with Gucci.
Brigham Young warned his people about this. Hugh Nibley saw it up close and personal in his family, since his grandfather, a businessman with questionable ethics, was in the First Presidency. But for a hundred years or so, particularly as the LDS Church expanded internationally, the handshake of Zion and Babylon was a fairly well kept secret (for structural reasons as much or more than premeditated or devious ones). Now the cat is out of the bag. Members have, for some years now, had a greater historical awareness. They have watched the Church's involvement in politics, and now they have witnessed a very dramatic example of that devil's bargain symbolized by City Creek.
The open letter to President Monson that has been linked shows you that many members don't like that bargain. They like the pretty buildings, especially the temples. They love the fact that they don't have to go to welfare farms or be assessed for building donations. They resent even having to clean the buildings they have. But do they see that the shiny temple or stake house is built on mundane business dealings? When the recent issue of the Ensign went out, it included an insert encouraging the members to subscribe to the Deseret News. Why? Because the Deseret News is in financial trouble. In other words, the members are being used to rescue one of the Church's for-profit businesses.
Does this really work? Are people going to tolerate this moving forward? I think that one of the casualties of these circumstances is the average member's sense that she or he is part of the Kingdom of God. Someone who truly feels like a member of this divine community does not treat the Church as something external, which lies or tells the truth, which has a true or false history. A member of that Kingdom derives identity and spiritual vitality from living participation in the community. But now the Church is outside the members. It is something the members relate to and buy into. It is a product with a brand that members buy or do not buy. The leaders sell the brand to the members. When it appears like the brand has been misrepresented, the disillusioned buyer walks away and charges the Church with fraud.
It's really not that surprising.
The corporation is a nearly ubiquitous form of legal organization, so I have no doubt that many large churches are incorporated in various ways. The difference with the LDS Church is in its particular mix of theology, incorporation, and history. Other churches may have relatively insignificant business holdings and their corporate entities have a very limited function. The LDS Church, in comparison with a number of other churches, seems to have an unusually vast business empire. This empire is explained and defended on theological grounds. This does not change the fact, however, that most members are not really conscious of the business side of the church and don't understand the consequences of that side of things. I believe City Creek really raised a lot of people's awareness. Unfortunately, many of us viewed it as a strange new development. In reality, it was representative of a whole world that had formerly gone on beneath the radar. I don't think this was done deceptively, however. I think the issue is one of structure. Unless you are a relatively high-level leader in the LDS Church, you just don't see this side of things.
Imagine yourself as a recent convert from a Protestant faith with relatively subdued community tastes. You see the prophet of God cutting the ribbon at the Church's new shopping mall and whammo! You are thrown for a big loop. Having been lured in by the idealism of no paid ministry, you see a very mercantile side of your new faith and have to wonder what just happened to your world.
| Quote from a poster on another board. I don't know how widespread this impact is.
"Missionary's in my area are being instructed to say they don't know about it (most don't understand it anyway) and I've been stuck for the last few days trying to educate them on it. Many can't seem to understand the issues, More then a few eyes have glazed over during the explanation.
The instructions are not offical, They are just from Senior Missionary's, ZL's etc...
The news has gotten around, Even if it's not well placed in the media. Mostly it's been young adults (collage, university etc...) that are asking about it.
On Monday I had some ZL's tell me that their missionary's are all reporting people asking about it and that they don't know what to do, It's been shutting them down and the "key indicators" are dropping like a fat man though ice.
Apparently the church never expected this to be a "grass roots" style news event and it's impacting the missionary program, in my area anyway. The Mission President has been silent thus far and Missionary's are starting to panic."
Note particularly:-
"I had some ZL's tell me that their missionary's are all reporting people asking about it and that they don't know what to do, It's been shutting them down and the "key indicators" are dropping like a fat man though ice."
| Below is the TRANSCRIPT from the audio interview posted on the Infants on Thrones website February 17, 2014: http://infantsonthrones.com/the-summo...
THE SUMMONS: TOM PHILLIPS vs. THOMAS S. MONSON - part 1
Tom Phillips joins Scott, Matt, Bob and Glenn to discuss the recent summons against Thomas S. Monson and the LDS Church. Posted by Glenn Ostlund on February 17th, 2014
***INTRODUCTION***
TOM PHILLIPS: First of all, this is not allegations of fraud against the religion. This is a criminal allegation against a corporate entity that is worldwide, that markets in a deceptive manner in order to receive financial benefit. It is a corporation that sends out salesman, eighty thousand of them or whatever, to market a product. Not only do they not give full disclosure, they actually give false information about their product, and about their history, their doctrines, and they do not give full disclosure. These allegations are all based on factual statements. So this is the case. If you look at this as a corporation they have committed financial fraud under this specific act. It's not a type of religion.
GLENN: Welcome back to Infants on Thrones. I'm Glenn Ostlund and today we're kicking off our multi-part series on The Summons: Tom Phillips versus Thomas S. Monson, a tale of two Tommys. Actually I don't think we're going to be using that last part. But, I say this as a multi-part episode because you know at this point I don't really know how many of these we're going to eventually put out. We recorded nearly three hours-worth of conversation with Tom Phillips last Sunday, February ninth. And as this case progresses we'll follow-up with other interviews and other discussions. So there is going to be more than just what you're going to listen to today. Unfortunately the audio quality for this first interview wasn't great. Tom was in Thailand. Scott and Matt and Bob were on the west coast and I was in Germany. So it's amazing that we were able to have this conversation at all. But there were a few parts where Tom's audio cut in and out. So I apologize for that up front. We'll do our very best in classic infantstyle to keep the content and the flow of the story.
So I'll give a brief background on what's going on for those of you who may have been living under a rock for the past three weeks.
On January 31st, 2014, the Westminster's Magistrate Court in the U.K. issued a summons to Thomas Spencer Monson, the President of the Mormon Church. Now President Monson has been summoned to answer allegations of criminal fraud as defined in the 2006 Fraud Act of the U.K. And it's been brought against him by Tom Phillips. Now many of you will be familiar with Tom Phillips from his unpublished Mormon Stories interview a few years back where he talked to John Dehlin about his experience receiving the second anointing. Now that's a fascinating discussion that you can find if you search for it on MormonThink.org [com] where Tom serves as the chief editor.
Let me quickly give you a brief background on Mr. Phillips:
Now Tom is a British citizen who joined the church with his wife in 1969. He served twice as a bishop in two different wards for a total of about six and a half years. He also served as a stake president for five years. Now during that time he came to know several general authorities and apostles on a pretty personal level.
In 2002 Tom was invited to receive the very secretive second anointing where he was essential sealed up to eternal life - his exaltation and eventual Godhood guaranteed. A few years later however he experienced a crisis of faith and left the Mormon Church at great personal cost. Again, you can listen to that story elsewhere. But it's important to know going into this that Tom Phillips is not just some random, angry ex-Mormon with an axe to grind. When he speaks about church leadership and the tenants of belief, he speaks from a wealth of experience.
So, we have this summons issued by a British court and if President Monson does not appear to answer the summons on March 14th at 10 A.M. in courtroom six a warrant could be issued for his arrest.
Now, this sort of thing isn't new and shouldn't even be completely unexpected if you've ever spent any time as a member of the Mormon Church. Now Joseph Smith had numerous run-ins with the law throughout his life. The first was in 1826, four years before the founding of the church, where he was found guilty of fraud himself. Now, that wasn't of a religious nature at the time, it was as a glass looker, a treasure seeker, someone who used fraudulent claims and extraordinary supernatural power to get gain.
And then of course his last run-in with the law ended eighteen years afterwards with an angry mob taking his life in June of 1844. Now this time he was arrested for destroying a printing press that was exposing things that he would rather have kept in the dark.
Now 170 years later the president of the largest break-off group from Joseph Smith's original Mormon Church is being summonsed to answer accusations of fraud and the repression of true information once again.
Now if you don't find this stuff completely fascinating, well than maybe you're just - I don't know. So here's what you can expect to hear in part one:
[1] Why the October Surprise became the January Surprise.
[2] Why the allegations are for criminal fraud against a corporation - and why this is not an attack on religion.
[3] You can hear the process that Tom went through with the courts to issue this summons.
[4] How Steven Bloor and Christopher Ralph became involved in the case.
[5] What types of response has Tom heard from the church so far.
[6] Why the church in this case is rightfully looked at as a corporation.
[7] And the significance of tithing in this fraud case.
So sit back and enjoy the episode. So with no further ado, I'm going to kick it off to our very own Jesse, A.K.A. Scott, I think he's going to go by Scott for now on. So it's Scott who arranged this interview with Tom in the first place. Way to go Scott. He and Matt, both attorneys, make it for a very interesting discussion. So here you go.
***BEGIN INTERVIEW*** at 7:00 minutes
SCOTT: So this was originally people started referring to it as the October surprise because you were planning to release this news in October of 2013 and it didn't end up happening until late January of 2014. So a lot of people were skeptical that anything was going to happen. But, can you give us some insight into kind of a time frame and what happened?
TOM: I think so. Also, I never coined the October surprise. I think what happened early 2013 after the so called Mormon moment of 2012 with the presidential campaign, some of us on the boards were talking about something occurring better in 2013. And I made a comment at one time saying, I think there's a number of things happening in 2013 and one of which I'm involved in. But there's a lot of other things which I think will have an impact on the church. Then I was questioned about it. In my enthusiasm, people talked about legal situations and how the church could never be taken to court and things like that. And at one time in my excitement for the project I was working on, I did let it slip that I was taking some action. And then I was asked questions. I didn't give any details. But I was asked questions about when, and I just said, we'll maybe by October. And I was thinking there was two things happening in October. There was the church had its October general conference and also there was an ex-Mormon Foundation Conference at which I had been invited to speak.
So I thought that sounded like good timing and as far as I was concerned there was adequate time for this to happen by then. So I said October. I was, being non-U.S., I was ignorant of the term October surprise. I later on found out that prior to November elections people put out things to try and sway the election. Hence the populace term called the October surprise. So that's I think how it became known and as you say didn't happen then and there was various delays.
I was being asked when would it happen? And each time I thought well maybe we're two weeks away, or a month away, and it just went on and on. And I think I got quite vilified by a lot of people that felt nothing was going to happen and it was also kind of ruse with ulterior motives. So that's a bit of background to the October surprise.
Now, your question, "Why didn't it happen then?" I don't know. There's a simple answer to that - there is no reason at all why it should not have happened. I had prepared my various submissions and submitted them to the court on 10th of October and said that I would be available in London for following week. And I did appear before a district judge and had an oral hearing and there's no reason why it shouldn't have happened then. So my answer is I don't know why.
SCOTT: O.K. So let's, if I can jump in there. Let's just describe what we're talking about here for anybody who may not be familiar with it. So you're a U.K. citizen?
TOM: Yes.
SCOTT: And you, forgive me if I use the wrong term, or feel free to correct me. But my understanding is that you filed an action under what's called the Fraud Act of 2006. And basically your allegation in that document is that the church, namely Thomas Monson, has made seven specific fraudulent claims that are demonstrably false.
GLENN: So here are the seven claims that Tom made in this summons:
. . . First, that the Book of Abraham is a literal translation of Egyptian papyri by Joseph Smith.
. . . Second, the Book of Mormon was translated from ancient gold plates by Joseph Smith and is the most correct book on earth and is an ancient historical record.
. . . Third, that native Americans are descended from an Israelite family which left Jerusalem in 600 B.C.
. . . Four, Joseph and Hyrum Smith were killed as martyrs in 1844 because they would not deny their testimony of the Book of Mormon.
. . . Five, the Illinois newspaper called Nauvoo Expositor had to be destroyed because it printed lies about Joseph Smith.
. . . Six, there was no death on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago.
. . . Seven, all humans alive today are descended from just two people who lived approximately 6,000 years ago.
SCOTT: And that now there's a summons for Thomas S. Monson to appear in London in that court action. Is that a good explanation of it?
TOM: That is. Sometimes it's been described as a lawsuit or as you say filing an action. It's actually, yes, it's for criminal fraud - allegations are criminal fraud, and that I'm bringing as a private prosecutor.
SCOTT: Now describe that for our U.S. audience, because in most United States cases, if you were bringing the action you would be a party to the case. And if it were a criminal action it would be the state or the city or the government entity that would be acting - it representing the government acting as the prosecutor. So how does that work when you're acting as an acting prosecutor as a citizen?
TOM: OK. Yes, normally in a civil action it's one of the aggrieved parties that would take that action. Criminal prosecutions, and Matt can correct me if I'm wrong, but certainly in England for hundreds of years, well almost since the Magna Carta every citizen had the right to bring criminal action. In fact the idea of state agencies or government agencies taking action is a fairly recent, modern phenomenon. Originally it was private individuals that did that. Now as I understand it in the U.S. I think there is some kind of private prosecution but a much watered-down version. Because as you say it's usually the state that take action.
In England and Wales, and let me just say this does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland that have different laws, but in England and Wales the private prosecutor has been retained in the law and it was seen by parliament as being an essential part of the justice system. So I'm taking that as an individual citizen action which could normally be taken by the Crown Prosecution Service or by the Serious Fraud office in the U.K.
SCOTT: So maybe you could describe in a little bit more detail the process that you've had to go through. You've said that you've lodged documents or you've filed something in October of 2013. What did you submit and what was the process to get from there to this summons that we've all now seen that we'll be talking about?
MATT: And if I could add to the question because the two who are mentioned, what Steven Bloor and I don't remember the name of the second person, how did they get involved in that process with you as well?
TOM: OK. The process according to law is for a private prosecution to take place. What one is required to do is to lay an information before a magistrate, that is a document, it doesn't specify the particular format of that document, but it must identify the law under which the allegations are being made and various things like that. Often it can be a one page submission - or two pages. And that is then looked at by a magistrate or in this case a district judge and either starts to initiate the process or throws it out immediately. The reasons for throwing-out any private prosecution on laid down by law as if it is vexatious, I'm using the word trivial that's your legal term, somewhat different - trivial, vexatious or an abuse of process. Any of those and it's immediately thrown out because obviously you can't have a private citizen just going along making accusations about someone that's just based on nonsense.
Having past that test what you did, you then look at does the private prosecutor have the authority to bring this prosecution and does the court have the right to listen to this application. And then passing that test it then looks at the evidence, that there is sufficient prima facie evidence for a case. Those are the legal conditions. Now in that case this should have taken hardly any time to get through. In fact, the district judge in this case cannot obviously know what the motivations would be, but I assume from the kind of backlash we've got, could see better than I the kind of opposition there would be and the outcry of religious freedom and all sorts of things like that even political influence that could become to bare. So I actually appreciate that this particular district judge decided to go through this in minute detail. My submissions were not one or two pages but more like fifty or more pages of documentation and argument and basically the judge put up every conceivable defense that came to hermind that could be brought into this case.
Matt: OK, could I just interrupt you real quick there just to clarify something? So that judge who looked at those documents, is that the same district judge that you will be in front of on March 14th?
TOM: No it will not be the same judge.
SCOTT: OK so that
TOM: Well I have assumed that - well sorry, I asked that question and I was told it was unlikely to be. This judge has taken part in this process. There will be another judge at that time.
SCOTT: OK and that
TOM: That is my understanding.
SCOTT: And that 50-page filing that you made initially is that something that's publically available or is that just only seen by the court?
TOM: No that is only seen by the court and some of that is yes, communication between the judge and myself. So that at this stage as I understand is not something that the court would enter into the public record. So far as I am aware, the court has already confirmed that this action and the listing for the March the 14th - that's in the public domain. But they really start from March the 14th where there will be an open court session, there will be reporters there, so anything there is in the public domain. Britain believes in open justice and it's unusual - there have to be unusual circumstances for restrictions to be placed on reporters.
MATT: Because the only thing that really matters is American law obviously to Americans anyway. If I can compare a little bit, in the United States an action or a complaint can be filed, a criminal action is brought typically by the law enforcement officer will initiate it, the person that's investigated a crime. And they will submit it. But there has to be a finding of probable cause. They submit it with what they call a PC statement or a probable cause statement that could be many pages long or it could be a paragraph long. So and so did these things that give rise to an offense. And then you have a judge that will review that and determine whether or not there is in fact probable cause. Then they have an opportunity to deny it or say no there's not enough here. And then it proceeds to where we have to get either a formal finding of probable cause before a judge or an indictment by a grand jury where they also find probable cause.
So that's the process in the U.S. and virtually every state that I'm aware of. And so it sounds like this tracks that same process to a degree except that it's a[n] action that's brought by a private citizen but there's still this judicial review of whether or not there's at least this prima facie finding or there's a prima facie finding that an offense was committed and this person committed the offense. Is that a fair description of what's done by that judge?
TOM: That is a very fair description. Yes.
SCOTT: OK forgive us because Matt and I are both trial attorneys. We practice in different areas of law somewhat. But we're going to try to not be too overly legalistic in this interview.
SCOTT: Since it is a legal action I think it's kind of important to define exactly what's going on,
MATT: It's helpful though I think because . . . (hey we're right here.) People are still characterizing this as a civil lawsuit - - - it's criminal, so that's an important clarification to make I think.
GLENN: As one of the lay people, I think the main question that I want to ask is just how dismissive can I be of this whole thing without understanding it? Because that's kind of what's been floating around both on surprisingly on the ex-Mormon side and on the active Mormon side. There's this sort of attitude of, "Oh it's from a private citizen. This happens all the time. Anybody can do this at any time. Sure it's gone through one stage but that doesn't matter. There's still a wide funnel here that has yet to narrow down, and this is nothing until it becomes something."
And I want to understand if that's a fair criticism in some ways or what level of filtering there still is in other cases how far things go before they get dismissed and that sort of thing?
MATT: Well there's a saying in America at least that they say, "You can indict a ham sandwich." So I can get a grand jury, for example, to indict anything, and I can go forward. The question is whether or not it goes further. So at the March 14th hearing, which I believe is the next step, what happens there?
TOM: OK. Let me just back up to answer an earlier question there in this whole thing about U.S. / U.K. law. Because yes, most people have weighed-in on this are U.S. and a lot of U.S. lawyers and doing it from that side. I'll get to the British so called law experts have commented on it maybe later on.
GLENN: And it's at this point that our so called podcast started having some serious audio issues. So let me just summarize the main points that Tom made in response to Matt's question.
(a) The district judge who reviewed this case has over 20-years' experience on the bench.
(b) The district judge reviewed each allegation in the 50-page document in meticulous detail.
(c) There are conditions whereby a case without merit could be thrown out at any point. Now this case did not meet those conditions and obviously was not thrown out.
(d) This is not an unsubstantiated crack-pot charge. It's already been rigorously reviewed and vetted. In the court's understanding, there's enough information here to demand that President Monson personally explain and defend the allegations of fraud being made against him as the head of this corporate structure.
So no one should really dismiss this, because I don't know how to put this, but kind of a big deal.
MATT: Tom do I understand it correctly? It seemed like you said there were about 50-pages that were submitted, that the magistrate talked with you about those different points and challenged you on some of them? And where I thought that was going was that the seven points that ended up in the final charge were kind of the result of that vetting process? Is that what happened or am I thinking about this the wrong way?
TOM: No, the seven challenges are what I contained originally.
MATT: OK.
TOM: To answer - those seven charges, they're intact. The wording may be a little bit slightly different to what I had originally put, and may not be ---- certainly when that goes forward to the indictment stage some of that wording will be, I think, improved. Because some of that wording was not my original wording, and I don't think it was tight as it should be. But anyway that will be better done at the indictment stage by trained prosecutors.
SCOTT: I'm glad you clarified that, because that was a question I had. So do you have any indication when the indictment stage will be and where does it go from here? I know there's a hearing on March 14th.
TOM: March 14th, that's right. Now let me just --[audio problems]-- Steven Bloor and Christopher Ralph, two names appear on that -- two summonses, individual names. Now that caught ---- I was faced with a situation there, that I will admit to here, that was a ---- during this process I've always maintained the victims of this crime are thousands of individuals in England and Wales and also the U.K. treasury, representing the British tax payer. They are the victims in this crime. And I was only seeking one summons to rectify that.
The district judge, again looking at the wider issue of fraud, wanted named individuals. At the time I was asked to provide one individual as an example of the thousands I was talking about. At that time I contacted Steven Bloor and Christopher Ralph to see if they would be willing to putting written submissions and if necessary to attend court under oath to represent those submissions. I gave them, so they had access to make these things, and my understanding was that was just to demonstrate to the district judge that there were people out there. It was never my intention that they would part of this case other than during trial such individuals could be called to confirm these things.
It then became a final point between us that the judge insisted on named individuals. Now I was then faced with the fact that OK I can go out and get hundreds or thousands of named individuals - that will take a little bit of time plus I will have to disclose what's been going on here, because I can't just ask people. Steven Bloor and Christopher Ralph I could trust to keep this all confidential. But if I suddenly wanted to have say a thousand victims, that's going to get out and there's no way I can contain that.
I also pointed out at the time that the law did not require named victims, and the Home Office which is maybe like your Justice Department but gives guidance on these things to the judiciary has actually commented on this Fraud Act 2006 and they have said quite explicitly that there doesn't even have to be one victim, because the offenses that are alleged only require that the person making the false representations INTENDED, dishonestly intended ---- dishonestly made the statements and secondly they INTENDED to make a financial gain for themselves or for someone else, or to cause a loss to someone else, or to cause an exposure to the risk of loss to someone else.
So even if someone had made false representations in England and Wales and there wasn't one victim because no one fell for the con, if you like or whatever was being represented, they would still be guilty of a criminal act under this legislation. So I maintain to this day we don't have to name any victims in these summonses or in this indictment.
Now I argued that --- let me finish on that --- I was then faced with the consequence of either accept the summons as they are or to appeal that decision of the district judge, which I was quite entitled to do and take that to the high court for them to decide on the law, but that would involve meaning another four months delay. I chose the option of let's get it on with process now and then we'll look at that kind of thing as it moves forward and into the indictment stage.
So to answer your question about March the 14th that's a date now, that's not something that would be rescheduled. I mean there would have to be some serious reasons for rescheduling that whether it was ill health or whatever. And that would be an application to the court. This is on the listing for the 14th.
Regarding the seriousness of the summonses people are saying, and again I wish Mr. Monson would actually take proper legal advice and listen to that, instead of getting the church PR machine. I've seen an email from Michael Purdy to the PR people in the church which basically says, "Kill this story at all costs. Kill this story at all costs."
Now I would think that anyone that's faced with a summons, especially in consideration of the twelfth Article of Faith, would actually take proper legal advice and find out, if at all, they might be guilty of such a thing. And if they are, address it seriously, not just dismissively say, "There is nothing here, these are bizarre allegations and we're not even - Mr. Monson will not even attend."
Now let me get that quite clear to him if he does not attend, just read the bottom of the summons if he's got that far. If he does not attend then an arrest warrant will be applied for and issued for him.
GLENN: Tom I've seen a lot of speculation and I don't know if these people have any idea what they're talking about, but speculation that the church is going to put their attorneys on this thing and it's just going to go away, it'll be dismissed before this March 14th. Is that even a possibility?
GLENN: I gotta tell you it feels a little weird cutting in and out right after my own voice, but again we're having audio problems, so you're just going to have to trust me here. Tom said, "That it IS a possibility that the church could file some motions to bury the courts in paperwork.
TOM: (audio continuing) paperwork and cause all the delays imaginable. The proper thing to do is to turn up and face . . .
GLENN: face the issues head on. And here Tom once again cites the twelfth Article of Faith, which I don't know, President Hinckley what does the twelfth Article of Faith say?
GORDON B. HINCKLEY (recording of GBH saying): "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.
[plays audio of primary children singing the 12th Article of Faith]
TOM: . . . My personal view, and what I have been advised is, there is no way out of this summons other than for me to withdraw the summons. And I'm not even sure that's a possibility.
GLENN: So what does Tom think about the dismissive attitude he's seen about this case from both active Mormons and former Mormons alike?
TOM: Obviously that's a reaction to this flippancy I see in the press from again who is being quoted as dismissing it --- but may needs to I see it is that the church PR machine. - - - This is solid.
SCOTT: I think some of the basis for that, at least from what I've seen, seems to be that here in the U.S. we have a legal doctrine that says that the law basically can't get involved with any kind of doctrinal claim. And what I mean by that is that if there's any kind of theological assertion that a church makes it's basically off the grid in terms of the law is concerned in terms of anything being fraudulent or anything like that. So it's somewhat shocking I would say to a U.S. mindset and maybe even to a European mindset to think that a religion could be prosecuted for this type of a fraud. So could you describe for us, is there any kind of legal precedence for this? I mean I know that the Church of Scientology has had some prosecutions against it for some things, but is there any kind of legal precedence for fraud against a religion under this Fraud Act of 2006?
TOM: Well, first of all this is not allegations of fraud against a religion. This is a criminal allegation against a corporate entity that is worldwide that markets in a deceptive manner in order to receive financial benefit. Just take religion and everything else out of context for right now. It is a corporation that sends out salesman, 80,000 of them or whatever, to market a product where they do not only give full disclosure they actually give false information about their product and about their history, their doctrines, and they do not give full disclosure. And if they are confronted with anything
***Dialogue insert***
VOICE 1: Why are you trying to avoid us?
VOICE 2: I'm not trying to avoid you. Why would I be trying to avoid you? That's so funny that you think that.
VOICE 1: And you are legal counsel and spokesperson for diversified industries?
VOICE 2: No I'm not.
VOICE 1: Your name is on the letterhead?
VOICE 2: No it isn't.
VOICE 1: Yes it is. I have it right hear. Would you like to read it?
VOICE 2: You read it.
VOICE 1: I have read it.
VOICE 2: Then why should I have to read it?
VOICE 1: Because it's your letterhead.
VOICE 2: I know that. You don't think I know that? It's my letterhead. I'm quite aware of that. Is it me or is it him? It's him isn't it?
******
TOM: It isn't attack on religion --- proper religion --- then we're talking about beliefs and theology. I don't think they're quite so testable in court that these allegations are all based on factual statements that are to be taken literally, not metaphorically, but they are literal statements. And in terms of precedence, I'd say president in the United States, Bernie Madoff. OK it's not a religion. But if I want to, or if someone wanted to commit a fraud and made it surrounding a church, would that actually fly in the United [States]? And I don't know, I don't know anything about that. But churches in the U.K. if they break the law they are culpable under the law.
SCOTT: And I think that the strongest point that you make there Tom, you know you say that you've got to imagine the church as if they're a corporation. But the strength of that statement is that it's not a metaphor you know because they actually are a corporation. This is how they're structured and this is what they're doing.
TOM: Yes. And when we talk about this corporate structure if I look at the U.K. they have, let's say for argument's sake they have four hundred walls or parishes in the U.K., they under U.K. law each parish is considered like an un-incorporated association an it's recognized and protected as their['s]. Now however, the church also has an actual corporation that's registered at Company House and registered with the Charity Commission. That corporation receives all of the tithing income for the church. That corporation is not a church. It is a registered charity that is supposed to assist the church in whatever it wants to do. So that is purely a corporation.
There are two stockholders in that corporation. One is the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And the other stockholder is the Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Both of those are corporate soles. And the one per individual that has ultimate control of those is Thomas Spencer Monson, hence his name appearing on the summons. He's responsible for all of the corporate affairs associated with this alleged fraud.
SCOTT: And can we describe then in your 50-page complaint that you drafted was that somewhat explained in there. Because based on this summons the only thing that we see is that it's just addressed specifically to Thomas Monson and it doesn't actually list those corporate entities on the summons itself. Is that why that's the case?
TOM: Yes. Those corporate entities that I had just mentioned are included in the written submissions.
SCOTT: OK.
MATT: Tom if we can I don't want the point to get lost, so I don't want to get in danger of just having you repeat yourself. I think it's really important to clarify that you are not out - this is not an action to prove whether or not the church or the belief system is false or fraudulent, but rather that an individual or a corporation engaged in knowing deceit - to having information and not disclosing that and benefiting financially as a result of that. Is that a fair articulation?
TOM: That is very fair and that should be explained. This is not an attack even on the Mormon Church or anything or the faithful Mormon members there are around the world. All I am saying is if you got out with missionaries, tell the full story. Tell the truthful story. And let people make up their minds whether or not they wish to join the church. Don't leave out important information, or even you could put in misleading information. If you want to tell the world that Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ and that he translated through the gift of God the Book of Mormon, and was also inspired by God to translate Egyptian papyri into the Book of Abraham, and all of those things, and he communed with God, and the Doctrine and Covenants, that's good. Now if you'll just give them that one side of it it's very easy for someone to have a very positive approach or response to that and join the church.
But, along with it you ought to be able to disclose, well now there are these other issues you ought to be aware of. And did you know for instance that he married other men's wives and things like that? Now that's not part of this. But if you wanted to get into those that's part of the full disclosure and then give the answers to it.
MATT: How significant is the connection between tithing and ordinances in your cause of action? Does that question make sense?
TOM: It makes absolute sense and that's why you're very sharp. I think in this action it's fairly easy to prove that the statements that I've listed, those seven statements are untrue. That's the easy part of the case. Right? I think that having experts in court to give evidence it will be unlikely that any one of those statements would be shown to be true and therefore thrown out. The trial will go more to the link between the tithing and those statements and other statements and also the question of honesty.
If for instance, and I think this goes to the heart of another church. Supposing another church was guilty of making some untrue statements, but they didn't illicit any money from you, you can just join the church, you can have the full benefits of that church, no question about it. But you know what each Sunday will pass around a collection plate and it's up to you whether you put money in that or not - they are freewill offerings. That I don't think, that such a church did that, I can't see being prosecuted under this law.
GLENN: So based on that as the premise that these questions are explicitly linked to tithing and the way the church collects money, I guess I have to ask, I'm surprised a little bit at some of the seven topics chosen, because I would have thought it might mirror say the temple recommend interview that is repeated over and over again by all of the lay clergy in the church or are in the common structural way that these so called facts are connected to tithing. So I am just curious how you arrived at the seven? If you are really going for causality there could have been some other ones in my opinion?
MATT: And before we totally get to that, you know Tom you mentioned that the freewill element of paying tithing in other religions that it's voluntary, I've seen that argument made in discussion boards by members of the church. In our church tithing is voluntary too and you're not going to be able to point to anybody who has been excommunicated from the church because they haven't been paying their tithing. So they would try to make this tithing issue a non-point. And that's where I think our questions kind of intersect Bob that if we can show that the tithing - you're prohibited from going to the temple if you don't pay tithing - you're prohibited from getting your endowment and being sealed together forever, certainly getting the second anointing, which we should probably talk about at some point, but there's all of these parts of Mormonism that you're excluded from even though you can still be a member of the church and not pay tithing. But you can't be in full fellowship and get all of the blessings, `cause you can go to one of the other three heavens, not the top one. Right? And it's a trickier argument.
TOM: Well, let's say, this is crucial you mentioned tithing interviews and things like that, temple recommend interviews, all of this has been [audio issues]
GLENN: been explained in those documents and this is what really impressed the district judge. I mean just listen to the way that President Oaks speaks about tithing during a general session of conference. Now does this sound like tithing is voluntary or optional at all to you?
DALLIN H. OAKS [of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles] [audio clip of Oaks' speaking]: When the risen Lord appeared to the faithful on this continent he taught them the commandments the prophet Malachi had already given to other children of Israel. The Lord commanded that they should record these words, "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation." After the Savior quoted these words he expounded them unto the multitude and said, "These scriptures which ye had not with you, the Father commanded that I should give unto you, for it was wisdom in him that they should be given unto future generations."
Here we see that the law of tithing is not a remote Old Testament practice but a commandment directly from the Savior to the people of our day. The Lord reaffirmed that law in modern revelation commanding his people to pay one tenth of all their interest annually and declaring that this shall be a standing law unto them forever.
MATT: Can I ask a follow-up question to this tithing question? Did I understand correctly that how tithing works in the church was some of the information that was contained in the 50-pages that was submitted to the district judge?
TOM: It's the first question that came up even before I went to the judge with contacting or discussing this with other law firms. They immediately thought in terms of the Anglican Church and said, "No way because these are all voluntary contributions." When I actually laid out to them the way tithing works in the church, they immediately said "Wow, this is different. That is the connection - and yes this case should go forward."
GLENN: So when a new convert is interviewed prior to baptism there are certain commitments that they must make before they're able to receive this saving ordinance that most members of the church consider to be a free gift from Jesus.
TOM: One of those commitments is to pay a full tithe. And so you agree to that. Now if you were to say, "No I'm not going to pay a full tithe." Guess what? There's no baptism. You don't qualify to join the church. You have to commit to that. Then the church has a follow-up 30-days later, the bishop is supposed to interview you. And he's got a number of questions for you. And the first question he asks is, "Are you paying a full tithe?"
So for the church to argue these are freewill offerings with all of the tithing settlement and everything else that goes on and actually refusing for you to attend your child's wedding because you haven't paid tithing, or you've been behind with your tithing, it's not a freewill offering. It is pay to play basically. And there are circumstances where I've have had reported to me parents who were behind in their tithing because of financial difficulties and they had a child of theirs being married. And basically what the bishops said, "Well you write me a check for the last years' tithing and you go. You don't write me a check and you don't go." So we've got incidences where people have gone into debt to attend their child's wedding.
GLENN: And we should just clarify that that's based on the Mormon structure that doesn't allow those who aren't quote un quote temple worthy, which includes paying a full tithe, to attend Mormon weddings which occur inside the temple which require a pre-screening and you to answer all these questions correctly. And what you're saying is you have cases of people stating that they basically have to choose between seeing their child get married at the ceremony, or not seeing them get married in that ceremony in the temple or going into debt to make that happen and that's basis for how important tithing really is for fellowship in the church.
SCOTT: So Tom as you explained these things to the magistrate what were their reaction?
TOM: Illuminating. Not believe .
GLENN: He said it was illuminating for them because tithing isn't treated like this in other churches. And this is one of the most significant factors in the allegation that a knowing fraud is being perpetuated for financial gain.
MATT: Oh this is very valuable I think to hear you explain these things. `Cause it's clear, what is clear that nobody understands through all the discussions on the boards and Facebook and all these different things really what this action is about.
TOM: That's correct. There's only two people that understand it up to this [point],
GLENN: himself and the judge, and maybe a few other officials within the court,
TOM: And none of those others are going to say anything about it and I realize that I need to be somewhat circumspect in what I say because I don't want to practice the prosecution case, and also I don't to be unfair to Mr. Monson.
***END***
GLENN: So this concludes part 1 of the summons: Tom Phillips vs. Mr. Monson. In part 2 we'll explore in more detail the connection between the set of claims spelled out in the summons and the accusation of intentional fraud.
Now how is this all tied to tithing and what connection, if any, does Tom Phillips' experience with the second anointing play in all of this? We'll discuss this and more in our next installment.
| |
|
How to navigate:- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
| |
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.
Website © 2005-2021
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119
HOSTED BY
 |
| |
|
