Wednesday, February 5, 2014

The "Untouchable" Tom Phillips

For press release 5 February, 2014 7:00 PM EST

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.”

Thomas S Monson is the worldwide leader of the Mormon Church

"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:  "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"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."  Also to "sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church."  And finally to be " a full-tithe payer."  Without meeting these obligations, you cannot receive ordinances (e.g., sacraments) that are required to enter the highest degree of heaven.  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.  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. 

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.”   

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.

Oh, the fantasy land created by Mormonism...

I hope everyone appreciates the slightly tongue-in-cheek flavor of this "press release".  While there is a Second Anointing ordinance which doctrinally says the receiver is not held accountable for sin, this belief is from a bankrupt ideology.  No one getting it is bulletproof from anything except from the make-believe punishments and judgments doled out by the 12+3 myth guardians in Salt Lake City.  That is, if they even believe their bullshit themselves, which many of us doubt they all do.


  1. isn't it nice we have enlightened individuals inspiring us? meaning you not THEM.

  2. What can the LDS clan do now? This challenges them to excommunicate Phillips, but if they do, it will bring the media in hounding. If they leave Phillips in place after calling Monson liar-liar-suit-on-fire, it shows they do in fact fear the second anointing given that man. Oh the trials!! They are in a quandry!

  3. David, you should probably coordinate with Tom before posting about him being bulletproof. Here is what he had to say on his Reddit AMA:

    [–]UstaBLDS 11 points 2 months ago
    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?
    [–]anointedone[S] 29 points 2 months ago
    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. Long ago...without the internet to display it to everyone.

  4. I. Love. This.
    Get the popcorn. (Hearts were gladdened, Popcorn was popped)

  5. What a zoo. I knew MormonThink was anti-Mormon in intent, but I had no idea how far off the deep end its leading personalities were. The last couple days have been revealing.

    1. Tom, revealing truth certainly doesn't mean anti-Mormon, as you say. But drawing people in to a site that focuses on material intended to cause doubt and disbelief under the pretense that the site is objective and neutral is not only anti-Mormon but fundamentally dishonest.

    2. Kent, I believe what you say here is exactly why the criminal probe into the claims of the mormon church are happening at all. They lead you in with a story that is only partially true, or not true at all, under the pretense that they are the guardians of all truth and the only way home - and then NEVER tell you the real story. How fundamentally dishonest is that?

    3. There will be no criminal probe. Those who believe that are willfully ignoring what the legal experts say, not to mention the ridiculous implications. And whatever you think about the honesty or lack of it in Mormonism, it doesn't justify the dishonesty of the people behind MormonThink and this lawsuit.

    4. " And whatever you think about the honesty or lack of it in Mormonism, it doesn't justify the dishonesty of the people behind MormonThink and this lawsuit."

      Ok, you made your claim about "dishonesty" of the mormonthink people. Do you have evidence? Show it.

    5. Already explained above: "drawing people in to a site that focuses on material intended to cause doubt and disbelief under the pretense that the site is objective and neutral is not only anti-Mormon but fundamentally dishonest." What part of that do you find doubtful?

    6. ” a site that focuses on material intended to cause doubt and disbelief under the pretense that the site is objective”

      See, that's a matter of your bias and Mormon perspective. What you need to show is what statements on Mormonthink are actually false, and then show the editors intended to lie about or cover up those falsehoods. Show us the evidence, not just your biased opinion.

    7. Kent, having a bias is not dishonest, otherwise would be completely dishonest by your definition. Get over it.

    8. Anonymous, you didn't answer my question directly, so I'm not sure what you're in doubt about. (I didn't say anything about false statements.) Are you in doubt that the site focuses on material intended to cause doubt and disbelief? Are you in doubt that the site presents itself as objective and neutral? Are you having trouble seeing how the former point makes the latter false?

      I said nothing about having a bias being dishonest. I don't believe that.

    9. To Anonymous, yes, there is absolutely evidence they are not as "objective" as you want to believe. Mormonthink is about as one-sided anti-Mormon as it gets. For example, they claim Joseph Smith was monotheistic (one God "being") until what? 1835? Yet in early 1832 Joseph claims "He lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father". (D&C 76) You can't see two beings standing next to each other and claim they are one "being" as cited by Grant Palmer.

      And Sabellianism? Are you freaking kidding me?? The author (R.L. Pratt) doesn't even know the meaning or the history of the term. His entire article based on a lie. Homoousion is the root of Sabellianism and was upheld in the Nicene Creed (completely opposite what the author stated). So why is that anti-Mormon crap there?

      I could go on... but I'd need to start my own blog. Yes, they are as dishonest as they come.

  6. This makes me so incredibly happy! I have warm fuzzies!

  7. George P Lee, a GA, who certainly had his second annointing was Ex'd for apostasy less than 3 decades ago. I think the bulletproof myth is forgetting about our Navajo apostle friend.

  8. Despicable and loathsome are you people. I know nothing of the "second annointing" but there is NOTHING that gives a blanket, get-out-of-jail free card as regarding sin for nobody. Apostles have fallen. A prophet (King David) committed adultery and murder. NO ONE has a blanket immunity from personal responsibility. NO ONE!

    1. Dear Anonymous,
      You are completely right, mormons are despicable. It is the mormon church that does the secret "Second Anointing" that tells people they will become gods no matter what they do on earth from that point on. The mormon apostles and 70s reserve that temple ordinance for the very very loyal and true. Tom Phillips has the courage to tell the truth, that even after receiving this "second anointing" that it is made up crap, that if more people understood would see the mormon church for what it really is, loathsome.

  9. I love your photos, David.

  10. Mr. David T., hello it is me....Hilary/Beaufort,

    The United States courts would have laughed at these allegations, too funny that another country is taking it seriously. You really do post the funniest things!

  11. Evasive nondenial denial (to borrow a term applied to the Nixon Administration). As I said above, MormonThink focuses on material intended to cause doubt and disbelief under the pretense that the site is objective and neutral. You don't deny either point, and it would be ludicrous for you to do so. As I said, it's not only anti-Mormon but fundamentally dishonest.

    But the mask is off, only those living under a rock will fall for it now.

  12. Kent, relax, take a deep breath and take it all in. Your defensiveness is evidence of your internal struggles with those that disagree with your point of view.

  13. More evasion. Try to stick to the arguments. (Not that matters to anything I've said, but I'm not a believer, so your all-purpose response to criticism doesn't apply anyway.)

  14. No excommunication is needed. Thomas Phillips is as the Jews of old. If Christ was here he would crucify him. He is doing all he can to deny the Holy Ghost and has crucified Christ anew. One must feel sorry for him.

  15. I'm sorry "pahoran 421", I missed your real name. What was it again?

  16. pahoran, are you saying the church doesn't teach people to pay tithing first before all other bills?

    David quoted two ensign articles. The first one is a 70 stating that if caught between eating and tithing, pay tithing first. The next quote is of a bishop, and it's in the LDS top magazine, so it is legitimate. So what if they say the bishop will then help them get food? That isn't always the case.

    Here's some more thoughts:

    Ensign, March 2004, p. 66-71
    "The most important step toward achieving financial well being is to pay tithing first-no excuses or exceptions. President Gordon B. Hinckley counseled: "some of you have money problems. I know that. You are struggling to get along. What is the cure? The only thing I know is the payment of tithing." "

    Really? The only way Hinckley knows is for you to pay tithing? He really wants your money.

    The following is an exchange that shows the dishonesty of LDS leaders regarding tithing:
    President Hinckley was interviewed just before the 2002 Olympics.
    REPORTER: In my country the...we say the people's churches, the Protestants, the Catholics, they publish all their budgets, to all the public.
    HINCKLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
    REPORTER: Why is it impossible for your church?
    HINCKLEY: Well, we simply think that the...that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world. That's the only thing. Yes.
    --Members are tithe payers. When can they see the financial information?

    The LDS teach tithing is essential to salvation, even threatening eventual death of some kind to those who don't pay.
    Doctrine and Covenants 64:23
    23 Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.

    Doctrine and Covenants 119:5
    5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.
    (kick them out if they don't pay--today you just can't go to the temple or celestial kingdom if you don't pay, but you can still live in Utah communities)

    Doctrine and Covenants 85:3
    3 It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God.
    (tithing prepares against vengeance and burning, allows them to be listed with god)

  17. Kent are you objective? Not here. Are you biased? Yes. You're also diverting this topic making it about the people, not the message. That smacks of bias.

    The LDS leaders lift themselves up as prophets. Tom Phillips is making a case that they willfully deceive.

    You flip the argument to the critics, saying "they say they're objective, but they're not!"

    I read mormonthink's objective just now and it says: "We encourage people to think objectively about issues involving the doctrine, practices and history of the LDS church. ... We present arguments and responses from both critics of the church and true-believing members and add some opinions of those who helped compile the data."

    That's right. They do far more showing of both sides than you'll ever see at FAIR or LDS websites. They do give opinions, and they never said "we are without opinions and biases" They said they encourage people to look at things objectively. You're trying to confuse people by changing the subject.

    The subject is: Monson pronounces himself a prophet as the only one holding all the keys to Gods authority. Then he encourages false representation of the facts. His church insists people pay tithing first, even if they can't pay other bills. His church teaches people that without tithing they cannot be saved. Without accepting him as a prophet, seer and the only one with the keys of gods authority, you can't get a temple recommend, can't go to the highest heaven. Yet, Monson gives false representation on key doctrines. That's the point, and you never address it. Instead, you go off on the critics.

  18. Frankie, and the rest...(David T. this is Hilary/Beaufort,

    People have a CHOICE as to whether or not to following the teachings of the church. Also, the Temple is full of people that are not 100% followers of the requirements to enter the Temple. If people are following the WoFW there would be no fat members attending Temple, because of you are following the WofW you wouldn't/couldn't be fat. The church authorities have to know that no one is perfect or perfectly follows everything questioned in the Temple interview. After all that is how David T. was found, "worthy," to enter the Temple.

    People following the teachings of ANY church request that a 10% tithing be paid. Every church states there will be blessings from paying. David T. and the rest are focused on the Mormon church because they are part of fulfilling the prophesy of the scriptures. Funny how that works out...!

    People can choose what to follow and what not to follow, it is that simple.

    1. No one holds a gun to the head of victims of financial scams like Madoff's "clients" either. But where did Madoff end up? Oh yeah, in prison. Why? Because he lied when he defrauded people. He gave exaggerated claims and false representations on the investments he pitched. People gave him money on that premise.

      Mormonism does that too. No one holds a gun to converts' heads, but they are lied to about the foundations of the church, sold a bill of goods in order that they pay tithing to be saved, lest they be burned at the 2nd coming, not get to the temple, not see loved ones sealed. Essentially, the mormon church lies to convince people to invest in futures they never really can collect on.

    2. I'm a convert, a fairly recent convert in fact, I converted in 2005. I came from a mainstream Christian church, that also promises blessings if one pays tithing. In fact I know of few churches that don't promise blessing, not just through tithing but other actions as well. I didn't and don't feel threatened. I know that ultimately my salvation is going to be up to me, and the Lord. Not the church, or its authority.

      Stupid is stupid, it doesn't matter who the stupid person is. If someone can't figure out that one is giving money to a church, vs buying into a scam that is their stupidity. Anyone tithing to any church should be smart enough to know they are giving the money, they are donating it, not buying anything including blessings regardless of what they may be told or what impression they are given.

      Oh, and anyone comparing a business to a church is stupid as well. Wait, isn't that what this Thomas Phillips is doing?

      (Mr. T....this is Hilary/Beaufort)

  19. (continued from previous long post...)

    And the craziness of the MT’s to place their eternal salvation in jeopardy grasping at those slivers and bits of semi-information, wringing their hands and attacking some leader / member. When most of the time, their sickness is just a matter of petty pride and lack of personal wholesome discipline in obeying Gospel Principles. Sorry to say, but the separating of the sheep and goats is occurring it appears…even the very “elect” (aka Mattsson, Phillips, etc.).

    MT’rs are like the kids I find in school who get disciplined for disrupting the peace in the class and sent to ISS (suspension)…they whine, complain, always blame someone else for their abnormal behavior…blame the teacher, their parents, the substitute, their skin color, society, rich people, white people, Asians, Mexicans, nerds, the studious, and the other kids they were bullying, etc. Never a thought to look in the mirror and see what a brat he/she has become…mostly trying to get attention / recognition / escape guilt….then the pride sets in and continues the drama. Now it’s not saying that their environment, culture they were born into and living in did not teach them some of this. But MT’rs seem to be grown up, have been around the block a few times, should have learned life’s lesson by now. They should have learned that sometimes life is unfair, good people do bad things, too; nobody is perfect, nobody has all the answers, not even church leaders. But to throw happiness, joy and goodness out of their lives when they get their feelings hurt by some untrained, obnoxious, ego-centric Bishop, Stake President or Elder’s Quorum President is rather adolescent.

    Faith in and testimony of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, Testimony of the atonement of Jesus Christ.
    Testimony of the Restoration of the Gospel. Sustain the President of the Church and his authority, and other general authorities and local church leaders. Living the Law of Chastity. Relationships with family members in keeping with church teachings. Support for or affiliation with any group or individual that teach practices that are not in agreement with church teachings.
    Making a good faith effort to keep the covenants the individual has made, to attend church meetings and keep their life in harmony with the gospel. Honesty in dealings with others. Paying a full tithe. Keeping the Word of Wisdom. Payment of and keeping current on child support or alimony, if applicable. If already attending the temple, does the individual keep the covenants made in the temple and wear the temple garment "night and day" according to the covenants made in the temple.
    Making a full Confession of any serious sins to Church leaders. Finding oneself worthy to enter the temple and take part in the ordinances within.

    GRANT PALMER HIMSELF TAUGHT ABOUT CHRIST FOR 13 YEARS to criminals in jail. CHRIST TAUGHT THAT IF YOU LOVE ME, YOU WILL KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS and if you don’t keep my commandments, Satan will come IN AND FILL IN THE VACCUM/VOID with his half-truths and deceit. SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE Grant Palmer, Tom Phillips and other THE MT’RS?

    1. Pahoran421, Those points you make are very important. Your insights are exactly the type of responses the LDS church needs to make to the London Magistrate to defend the truth. We are all grateful there is a living Prophet that will have the chance to stand up against apostates and share with the world his testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, Lamanite ancestry, and Joseph Smiths martyrdom. I'm grateful we can once and for all hear the truth from President Monson. Its the apostates who obviously weren't willing to pay a full tithe, they think it takes money to ensure worthiness for exaltation. Its important to watch and see how President Monson leads and guides the church and speaks as God's mouthpiece, for God will not be mocked. Keep up the good work Pahoran 421.

    2. your arguments seem to come from a perspective that Mormonism is true, therefore anyone questioning it is a bad person. You know what that is called? bigotry. intolerance. arrogance. stupid.

    3. Monson will never see the UK (in regards to the summons, that is).This thing has "fail" written all over it.

      Here's a true story of tithing payment for you: A woman in my ward--a new convert--called up our bishop one day. "Bishop," she said, "I can eat, or I can pay tithing, but I don't have the money to do both."
      The bishop's immediate response was, "Pay your tithing. We'll take care of the food." And that's exactly what the church did until she found herself in a better financial situation. I was the financial clerk at the time, and served in that position for many years. It's sad--pathetic even--that many anti-LDS make it sound as if a person who is poor but pays tithing anyway will somehow become more financially destitute than they were before. It doesn't happen that way. I know. Been there done that, and seen it done many times over.

      Be interesting in heaven to see how those who have "encouraged" others NOT to pay tithing when they find themselves standing before the judgement bar of God. They are essentially conning the person out of blessings they could receive by doing so.

  20. David T, I stated above, but I'll reiterate that MT is as dishonest as any other anti-Mormon site. The number of anti-Mormon articles far exceed the "pro LDS perspective". If it were "honest", it wouldn't be posting Grant Palmer's crap on there, which can be easily debunked with D&C 76:22-23 anyway. And Sabellianism? Really?? The author is absolutely wrong, coming to the exact opposite conclusion than what really happened (the Nicene Creed UPHELD homoousion and Sabellianism rather than rejected it).

    If that's the extent of their research, what other lies can we expect on there? Your beloved site may have started out objectively, but today it is nothing more useful than

  21. I've read the posts by those saying MT is dishonest for issues that amount to how many angels dance on a pinhead. To say that MT is dishonest because it has more critical material of the LDS church than you would like is a bias that I find amusing. When you learned that the LDS church still teaches the Book of Abraham is a "translation of some ancient records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt." That they are claimed as "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." And it has been fully demonstrated that the papryi, particularly the facsimiles, are completely a mistranslation of Egyptian, did you call the LDS church dishonest?

    I understand that it is a "major" issue for some that the date at which Joseph Smith went from monotheism to polytheism (trinity-view) is extremely important, but you seem to be bypassing a great problem: why the hell would a prophet of the true god need to change his views on god in such a significant way? This concern about "dishonesty" at MT over a date (which is a debate by scholars) is more like counting angels on the pinhead, and swallowing a camel while straining at gnats.

    What is dishonest to me is how many apologists can argue the pinheaded angels while swallowing the fabrications of translations and more.

    1. I bow my head and say "yes"

    2. No surprise that one of the chief architects of the dishonesty of Mormonthink continues to evade the plain point. Again, the site is intended and designed to draw people away from standard LDS belief while pretending to be neutral. Very simple, your handwaving and distractions notwithstanding.

    3. Hi Dave,

      Looks like you've got the troll situation well in hand although Pahoran's Cotton Mather impression is always loud and dramatic (or is he emulating Boyd K. Packer? I always wonder how he types with one hand raised to the square. Must be left-handed). Probably works on those with father-figure issues--same way the Old Testament does--but it's easy enough to shine a light in the bogey man's face and watch him morph into histrionic rants. Or else they run away. One of our mutual friends was on another site addressing the "Every Member a Janitor" issue (where he pointed out how tightfisted the church is), and one of the faithful swore that members had always performed those duties without compensation. So our guy dug up a Deseret News link and showed it to everyone, and danged if the challenger wasn't suddenly as scarce as Chris Christie at a photo-op.

      I also wonder what Kent thinks about "milk before meat" and how he uses this charge of "dishonesty" as a means of avoiding addressing the issues MormonThink raises.

      Now tell us about "Milk Before Meat" there, Kent.

    4. Yet more evasion. My point is made.

    5. I seem to have touched a nerve about MT's dishonesty. Good. I reiterate that MT may have been objective when it first started, but it's NOT NOW.

      Scholars "debating" about Joseph's switch from monotheism to polytheism shows just how stupid the argument is anyway. D&C 76 was written in Feb 1832. Vs 20-24 clearly show that Joseph knew that Jesus and the Father were separate beings. There shouldn't even be a "debate", because their theories from monotheism to polytheism are wrong. How is that in any way "objective"? It is only there to create doubt.

      I brought up the issues only as examples of their dishonesty and lies because specific examples were asked for. Now, when presented by specifics you are minimizing and deflecting from the fact that they are lying? Shame on you. Therefore, you have proven that MT is nothing more than an anti-Mormon website written by apostates dedicated to spreading lies and weakening testimonies. And it exposes you as one that agrees with them that even lies should be used to destroy peoples faith. May God have mercy on your soul.

  22. Frankie, you're so distracted by your stock responses to criticism you aren't reading what I actually say. I didn't say being biased was the problem. Again, what I pointed out is that MormonThink intentionally misleads people about the nature and intention of the site. Again, it pretends to be just a neutral, objective site when in fact it's intended and designed to draw people away from standard LDS belief. That's dishonest. Whatever you think about Monson, it doesn't justify that dishonesty.

    (And if you look at the topic post, you'll see it isn't about what you say it is either.)

  23. Kent is all about distraction and changing the subject. Keept trying, Kent.

  24. "PEEL BACK THE ONION in their lives and you eventually find dishonesty, fornication, adultery, deceit. MORMONTHINK PROMOTERS SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHAT THE WISH FOR: A trial. Because a trial will also expose deceit, deception and sins of the MORMONTHINK FOLKS including Phillips (Has he stolen tithing, embezzled tithing funds, been dishonest reporting to his leaders? "

    This is fun. Can't really come up with a really good argument so you attack by accusing the messengers of sin. Lol. Projecting some?

  25. More evasion. That's all I'll get here, apparently.

  26. First, you need to learn to separate facts from apologetics. You also need to learn the difference between evolution and adaptation. Finches with different beaks are still finches. Lizards changing colors are still lizards. Bacterium gaining resistances is still bacteria. We don't see any cross family traits like reptiles with mammary glands, or rodents with feathers. We don't see the beginnings of new features evolving (like growing additional arms or legs) in ANY species. We only see adaptive changes in EXISTING features. That is not evolution like you want to believe it to be. There are NO NEW features ANYWHERE.

    I bore of your apologetics. You are the furthest thing from being humble and teachable; you won't even read three tiny articles on the Thermodynamics (which debunks your "intermediate forms", too). You obviously are not the person to be debating with me about this because you only regurgitate the fabrications of others rather than doing your own research. You are not "pro-truth" as you claim, but you are, in fact, "anti-truth" as demonstrated by your equivocation and prevarication. You do not seek truth, only to mock and ridicule it.

    That being said, have fun dealing with your uncertainty (aka "cognitive dissonance").

  27. Ensign, December 2012 edition: "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."
    As someone who has served on a bishopric in the church I can affirm the above.

    The way I was taught was 'live the principle and receive the blessings'.

    I do know I have co-signed cheques to members who were struggling financially to the tune of hundreds of pounds to pay mortgage, Gas, Electric, food bills, etc.

    Perhaps my Ward in England was unique?

    It's certainly not ALL take and no give!

  28. "The probabilities alone of naturally mutating the 80,000+ nucleotide DNA sequence for a protein like Titin disproves evolution. ...don't forget that anything other than a 3-indel event causes a 100% collapse of the protein"

    Can you provide me the reference to the data showing that all 3-indel events cause this collapse? How would that have been verified? I can believe that some 3-indel events have been simulated/measured, but all combinations? I think you've over-extended your arguments.

    As for the probability of mutations in evolution, you're probably making assumptions that all indels are deleterious and none can be neutral. Even if they are deleterious, that range of effect is not binary, and removing it by natural selection can take generations, so simultaneous mutations are not often necessary. In this case the probability is more favorable than you imply, and such an allele (or double mutation) would be well inside the edge of evolution. In any event, I doubt there is sufficient data on all combinations to show that your simple assumptions hold in the vast space of a many-million member species with multiple neutral or non-devastating mutations happen across generations.

  29. David, it's anything OTHER than a 3-bp indel event. If you are a molecular biologist (I don't know your background), then you will know that it takes 3 bp (one codon) per amino acid. If the mutation is not divisible by 3, it is called a frameshift mutation and causes an alteration to the stop codons, in turn causing the protein to become inactive.

    I'm basing my assumptions on the sheer size of the Titin DNA strand (and the fact that very few molecular biologists understand probabilities - they don't cross over very well). Titin is rather robust and does likely have a high tolerance for alternate amino acid sequencing. But, given the fact that mutations do not occur every generation, that Titin is a rather "recent" protein in the evolutionary time frame, and the inconceivable number of iterations that mutations must "try" to make a viable protein; the amount of time required to mutate Titin proves evolution a fantasy.

    Another reality is that the Neanderthal genome is largely the same as homo sapien and the DNA sequence for Titin has likely changed very little if at all (i'm still trying to find a study that will let me compare the two). If that's true, Neanderthal DNA would hold the final nail in the evolutionary coffin, because it would show that Titin just does not evolve at all.

    BTW, I didn't want to turn this into a evolutionary debate, but it does seem inevitable given the only options for an exmo is to believe in evolution, or an evil God. And given the fact that the majority of exmo's reject an evil God, they do tend to become atheist.

    PS - this is not Rodney Meldrum (didn't even know who that was).

  30. Why is there a donate link on the mormonthink website since there is enough false representations on that site. By Phillips standards anyone who donates to his site will be able to take him to court at any time and claim the money back. Can you all not understand that no one forced him to pay tithing. The Church uses member donations for building and maintenance, social and welfare relief as well as education and missionary programs. All of these benefit full tithe payers, part tithe payers and non tithe payers.
    In my experience in the Church most people who leave the church and start knocking it are unable to live the standards so they try to justify their actions by trying to pick holes in it. Christ teaches us to love or enemies as well as our neighbours, Phillips is not showing love to anyone by his actions. May his god bless him.

    1. You seemed to have missed the important element: Purposeful deceit. The mormon church purposely keeps selling the same lies, even after others have shown scholarly evidence they are wrong.

  31. My experience out and back into the LDS Church showed me that atheists debunk God better than anything. Their argument concerning the Problem of Evil is pretty convincing, and no other religion or philosophy resolves that problem sufficiently, including Buddhism and even Universalism. (The Christian version of a fiery, burning, eternal Hell pretty much seals its fate). Atheism was looking pretty good.

    But when I learned that fundamental scientific laws (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) actually prevent abiogenesis, and thus preventing evolution to begin with, I questioned. After really studying probabilities and proteins (especially Titin), I knew there was no way it was natural. I was stuck.

    I began studying the Early Christian Church directly from the writings of the Early Fathers. I found that Christianity today was unrecognizable to what was taught in the Early Church. Eastern Orthodox probably was the closest, but even it has issues. Joseph Smith had actually been right about a great number of things.

    True Christianity, as taught by Joseph Smith, is the only philosophy that truly paints a "good" God. It answers so many of life's questions. I often ask myself how Joseph got it right, being the kind of man that he was. But he did, and I honestly don't care how he did it. And it gives me a lot of peace that he did.

    Having said that, seeing websites like yours, David, that give an unfair and outright libelous view of Joseph basically pisses me off. There is enough damaging information that is true that there's no need to lie about the other stuff. It is not an objective site, and you are turning other people like me away from finding peace.

    MormonThink doesn't have a forum, so this is the closest place that I can share what I know to be blatent lies found there. If you want to direct me to a forum that you participate on, I'd be happy to continue our discussion there...

  32. I'll let Grant know of your objections. I repeat what I said before, your objections to MT's honesty over a date is silly. You've blindly ignored so many positive and honest aspects of MT, and narrowed in on what might be (still TBD) a date oversight. Swallow that camel, and strain on that gnat.

    I'll take a look at your ref on titin.

    John Kimball does not agree with you about abiogenesis. The issues you raise are like many past issues in science. They usually get worked out with time. Science has a very good track record, and abandoning it over a few issues is ridiculous. You might as well give up on anti-biotics and viral treatments, because they are based on evolution.

  33. It's sad how bits and pieces of talks and statements can be used totally out of context for something like this article. For example, the quote in the article, "if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing" is actually followed in the actual talk by "The bishop can help them with their food and other basic needs until they become self-reliant", so they are not left destitute as the article seems to indicate. Plus, the judge dropped the lawsuit against President Monson, calling it "an abuse of court process".

  34. I have serious doubts about Tom Phillips has recieved the second anointing ordinance. First, because it is a copy and paste from what has been published on the web. Second the ordinance had already changed when Tom Phillips aparantely received his second anointing. It is completely different and it is received in different parts. When you receive one stage of the ordinance you do not know that there is another.. Third, in his interview on the radio he gives some details of the ordinance which are totally false. And fourth if Tom thinks he is untoucheable for receiving the ordinance, he does not comprehend it at all. The ceremony is not valid until is sealed by the Holy Spirit of the promise who is Christ. I mean that It is neccesary for the ordinance to be valid to have a personal manifestation of Christ saying you are exalted. So Tom has not received this Second Conforter so he is a normal member who has demostrated he is not worthy for the ordinance. So he may be excommunicated and be baptized again but noboy will have any confidence in him

  35. EXCUSE ME. First i did not say to you to trust me what i said is if you believe every word from him why not mine. I repeat to you that tom can not recieve the ordinance because has changed long time ago. What kind of proof you have got? None only his word. Second the second anointing was published in millennial star, journal of discourses, conference report and even wilford woodruff is reported saying that he had recieved his in front of a group of temple workers. Third according to your reasoning you can not trust in half of world wide population because the majority believe in the bible and it has been discredited by scientifist, atheist and others so according to you their opinions or ideas are not worthy.
    You have got a blind faith in tom's word a person who has charged to prs monson for believing in adam or not death before the fall or the age of the earth. Tom had to have charged all christian churches then. By the way was tom succesfully in his charge against pres monson? Let me guess. NO oh dear how right was tom

  36. David you are dismissed with your silence. You and Tom were very confident nobody could refute Tom's tale until now and because you are afraid of what i may say you do not publish my comments. Yes you are very objective. You are unmasked yourself

  37. What, then, is the calling and election made sure? The following scripture gives the definition:

    “The more sure word of prophecy means a man’s knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood.” (D&C 131:5.)

    Did Mr Phillipd receive that confirmation from the Lord?