Friday, June 13, 2014

Paying Trons Revolt!

...the trichotomy of Dehlin, Kelly and Phillips...

It's been a while since I wrote here, but current events dictate that I write at least a short blog.  Most of you know from the New York Times and other newspapers that John Dehlin and Kate Kelly have been threatened with excommunication by the LDS theocorpocrisy for their views on cultural and political issues.  

I can empathize.  The LDS Church came after me in September 2012 for my writings, including political discussions, also reported in the New York Times by the same writer.

The LDS Church is caught in a hard place. If they excommunicate vocal members, they get negative press.  But can they afford not to discipline members of opposing viewpoints?  More and more members are breaking their temple covenant of "evil speaking against the Lord's anointed".  If they tolerate it, it will catch on like the internet and spread to a large majority of members.  These members will question policies like modesty, drinking tea and coffee, full tithing during economically difficult times, intolerant views against gays and atheists, and more.  

The more members vocalize their "disrespect" the less power the Church Office Building has over the lives of their patrons--paying trons. (Tron is a "tool or device" by some definitions.)  Temple patrons "donate" heavy dues for the privilege to attend a ceremony where they covenant to give all they own, all their talents and devotion to the church, to promise not to criticize the men receiving their devotion and payment.  Patrons are beginning to see that they're mostly tools and paying for the privilege is not worth it.

As more members see the LDS Church pressure Kelly and Dehlin to shut up about opposing views or else, I hope they also take note of another member who has done far worse than these mostly mild mannered activists, yet who remains untouchable by the LDS Church.

In February through March of 2014, Tom Phillips, still managing editor of Mormonthink, acting as an individual filed a summons in the UK Magistrate Court against Thomas S. Monson, Corporate Sole owner of the LDS Franchise, and 'prophet'.  Talk about "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed".  What John and Kate have said pales in comparison to the many things Tom filed in court against the highest official of the LDS Corporation.  Did they issue a disciplinary court for Tom?  No.

I'll repeat here what I wrote in February:  
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.”
...
According to Phillips, he is one of the very few people known to have received this secret ordinance and then speak about it openly.

If members thought much about it, they would realize that the LDS Church only goes after members it thinks it can bully into submissive silence when they begin speaking out against their church.  I don't think either Kate or John will go away silently.  Tom is a whole'nother matter.  The LDS Corporation is caught with its hypocrisy pants on fire as it ignores Tom because it can't really speak to the truth on the Second Anointing.  

In an online LDS instruction manual they prompt members: "Do not attempt in any way to discuss or answer questions about the second anointing."  Why?  Because the entire ordinance is meant to create secret elites who are even more invested to keep quiet everything they learn about top management within the closed halls of the church offices.  

Tom just didn't buy it, and the church is hoping everyone ignores him and his second anointing.  But they have pulled back the curtain again with their action against the latest critics.

When will they learn that even patrons can only be bullied so much?


The light is shining on the real reason for the temple ceremonies.


10 comments:

  1. Great post David!

    ReplyDelete
  2. What about Robert Kirby, at the SL Trib? As he wrote in his column, he has been critical and hasn't been called in. He doesn't have the 2nd anointing, and he seems unaffected like Tom. Why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kevin, good point. Kirby has been a little critical in humorous form. He also advocates tolerance of Mormon theology and culture at times. He is such a pubic figure in Utah that to excommunicate him, with his Trib alliance, would unleash a lot of unwanted scrutiny on the Church. Kelly and Dehlin are less known among the faithful and most members are oblivious to the news.

      In the end, the difference between Tom and Robert K are the more scathing negativity Tom exhibits in sincerity and the tongue in cheek funny criticism Kirby dishes out. Tom is far more opposing than Robert.

      Delete
  3. Good to see you're still in the game swinging, my friend.

    I see our buddy Daniel C. Peterson decided to emulate your practice of including photographs on a blogsite. It also looks like he might've engaged in a typical DCP passive-aggressive smear; perhaps that's evidence he has this site bookmarked as well.

    I'm wondering if he's holding out hope of receiving his own Second Anointing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks buddy. I actually commented on a post by DCP today on Runnells, offering to meet for a beer while he's in Orlando. He actually approved it, but hasn't emailed to accept my offer to give him tips for his FAIR talk on the CES letter.

      Delete
  4. I love the reference to "Give unto them the Law of the Gospel as contained in the Holy Scriptures; also a charge to avoid all lightmindedness, loud laughter, evil speaking of the Lord's anointed, the taking of the name of God in vain, and every other unholy and impure practice." But, "Charges" do not have the same importance as Laws. Salvation comes by Obedience to the Laws and Ordinances of the Gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for coming back. Spot on, as usual.

    I think the "handle" I am settling on is: "Morning Glory"

    ReplyDelete
  6. I started investigating the church in 2003, during that time I came upon information about the second anointing online. There was a lot to read, so I'm wondering why David and Tom Phillips is making this sounding like it is brand new information coming out.

    I find it curious that David T. is giving this attention because if as he claims this church and the men running it are only in it for the money, then wouldn't that indicate they do not truly believe in the doctrines? And if they do not believe in the doctrines, why bother with something like a, "second anointing?" Remember they don't believe they are only in it for the money, why bother? And if they do believe then it throws out all of the other claims that David T., makes.

    Just imagine for a moment that it is true, to a degree. The D&C states a man can't be saved and not know it. Suppose someone had a vision or something along that line that clearly indicated to them that they are going to be sealed in the Celestial Kingdom? So, JS starts this second anointing....does that mean anything? It is only the Lord that actually blessing, so to speak, a sealing. No man would or could.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The leadership attract others who want to feel elite and special. Having them swear oaths and obtain special status is a way to keep them inoculated against leaving the LDS church or worse, defaming it.

      What you may not know is, leaders and employees of the LDS Corporate empire who reach these kind of levels also sign legal binding non-disclosure agreements. The LDS corporation has various levels of NDAs according to how deeply embedded you are in the financial stake.

      The 2nd An is just a way to attract the absolutely brainwashed and completely loyal members to deeper levels of church involvement. If you are that keen on committing yourself to the church and have any kind of useful talent, you will find yourself receiving the ordinance, while also signing NDAs. The NDAs weren't binding to a few foreign members, like Tom, and legally, he is immune.

      Delete
  7. So, what you are saying is that you have some fairly intelligent people that can't figure out that they are paying for a show?

    ReplyDelete