Tom Phillips Case Thrown Out

[why me]

Why would you bring criminal charges against someone if you aren't trying to imprison them?

I have this feeling that some critics of the church are trying to navigate through what Tom did. And it is not easy for them to find a place to be comfortable in. It seems that Abu may be having this problem. Of course Tom meant to harm the church. It got publicity for his cause and had the spotlight for 15 minutes. Now, his supporters and those critics who did not support him are attempting to find a ways and a means to salvage something from a tremendous loss.

 

But it is quite hard to see any win for the critic in this debacle.

[why me]

I do believe Dehlin took down or did not post the interview to Mormonstories because he knew it was something most LDS would not appreciate. 

Or he found it embarrassing when tom began the court case. Or it is just misplaced on the web somewhere. But most likely, he took it down because of the court case and the actions of tom. Or maybe the interview made tom look bad. So, it was taken down.

 

The possibilities are many.

Edited March 24, 2014 by why me

[USU78]

Tom Philips was my stake president in Coventry England. For him to say "I didn't know about....." is rather interesting to say the least.

 

He was one of the more knowledgeable men in the stake at the time, and certainly knew about the Book of Mormon, tithing etc., as bishop and stake president, he would routinely ask about tithing to members seeking a temple recommend.

 

He has a boulder sized chip on his shoulder for some reason, and, rather than do his own study, has chosen to cry "Foul" publically.

 

The result being his 15 minutes of fame, and his nomination for Martyr of the Year, for his outstanding performance with the British Justice system.

 

He knows better and has chosen to have selective memory about the very doctrines that he once defended and publically taught.

 

Hey, cousin:

 

I'm a stateside Dunn in Utah, and my great-great-great-great-great Dunn grandfather, named James, signed a deed in Connecticut to his son William in 1680.  Cannot get the clan across the water, but family rumor says the original Dunn was a Scot.

Don't know if true, and we only got beyond Simeon Adams Dunn, a Nauvoo and our first Dunn Mormon, in the last 20 years after over 100 years of looking.  His father was Simeon, whose father was Simeon whose father was the named William.

Anyway, here's my contact info if you'd like to chat:  RonaldLDunn@gmail.com/USU78

Edited March 24, 2014 by USU78

[USU78]

Under the Common Law, a person who brings a criminal prosecution in this manner is entitled under the doctrine of qui tam to share in any fines imposed.  In the US this has been included in certain statutes, including "whistleblower" lawsuits, where, if the case is picked up by the state for prosecution, the whistleblower gets his attorney's fees reimbursed.

 

Question:  Would Tom Phillips have been entitled to have his fees reimbursed and/or share in any fines imposed for the alleged fraud?

[The Nehor]

But it is quite hard to see any win for the critic in this debacle.

On the bright side it was a personal win for me as I watched him get curbstomped and now get to watch him go out with hat in hand trying to get more donations to cover his legal fees.

And later I get to laugh my head off when he is burning in hell.

So lots of wins for me in all departments with the possible exception of developing charity.

[stemelbow]

On the bright side it was a personal win for me as I watched him get curbstomped and now get to watch him go out with hat in hand trying to get more donations to cover his legal fees.

And later I get to laugh my head off when he is burning in hell.

So lots of wins for me in all departments with the possible exception of developing charity.

 

You're better off developing charity.  Without it, well you know. 

 

My goodness...this is sad on all levels, some level is added to this sadness when it results in LDS people relishing any possible eternal burnings down the line.

[The Nehor]

You're better off developing charity.  Without it, well you know. 

 

My goodness...this is sad on all levels, some level is added to this sadness when it results in LDS people relishing any possible eternal burnings down the line.

I was joking; that is why I included the charity bit.

[Sleeper Cell]

Reuben, do you know what annoys me about this. I've heard at least 3 accounts of Tom's life now from his *friends*, that purportedly knew him. All basically demonizing the man.

Have you listened to his Mormon Stories interview with John Dehlin. If you want to know what he went through, from the horses mouth, then listen to him.

What part of Reuben’s account of his experience with Tom demonizes him?  Calling someone “one of the most knowledgeable men …” is usually considered a complement.  As near as I can tell, Reuben bases his criticisms on what Tom said and did after the time he knew him

[stemelbow]

I was joking; that is why I included the charity bit.

 

I shoulda known.

[canard78]

where are you from in Great Britain?, if you don't mind me asking

London born, but have lived all over UK. I'd say I have "home counties" accent. Not like the queen but not one of the local/regional accents either.

[Scott Lloyd]

London born, but have lived all over UK. I'd say I have "home counties" accent. Not like the queen but not one of the local/regional accents either.

Maybe it's because I grew up in the era of Beatlemania, but the Liverpudlian accent has always been my favorite.

 

It's exemplified by one member of the quartet of buzzards in the Disney cartoon "Jungle Book" (who, by the way, was voiced by Chad Stewart of the British Invasion duo Chad and Jeremy).

Edited March 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I have this feeling that some critics of the church are trying to navigate through what Tom did. And it is not easy for them to find a place to be comfortable in. It seems that Abu may be having this problem. Of course Tom meant to harm the church. It got publicity for his cause and had the spotlight for 15 minutes. Now, his supporters and those critics who did not support him are attempting to find a ways and a means to salvage something from a tremendous loss.

 

 

Some are cutting their losses and altogether throwing him under the bus.

[Abulafia]

What part of Reuben’s account of his experience with Tom demonizes him? Calling someone “one of the most knowledgeable men …” is usually considered a complement. As near as I can tell, Reuben bases his criticisms on what Tom said and did after the time he knew him

Fair enough. I've just heard a lot of gossip about him. I hate it. I prefer to take him at his word. Who he is and what he thinks is available to anyone with google search.

I think a lot of people just feel so betrayed rightly or wrongly, and for the blame to be solely placed on their head is as unproductive as placing the blame solely at the church doors.

I'd like to take those I know at their word when they say that they want the church to be honest and open with its history, that's what they are fighting for.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Abulafia

[stemelbow]

Fair enough. I've just heard a lot of gossip about him. I hate it. I prefer to take him at his word. Who he is and what he thinks is available to anyone with google search.

I think a lot of people just feel so betrayed rightly or wrongly, and for the blame to be solely placed on their head is as unproductive as placing the blame solely at the church doors.

I'd like to take those I know at their word when they say that they want the church to be honest and open with its history, that's what they are fighting for.

 

I say when you are prone to talk ugly about people you should expect to have others speak ugly about you.  Its not as if I condone anything or everything said about him, but I don't see the reasoning behind calling foul at this point.  He's been terrible to some people, some of whom don't have a voice, many of whom he knows will simply ignore the things he's said about them.  He seems like a pretty vicious dude on that alone.  I'm sure he can sugarcoat it all in a way and make his perspective sound legitimate.  I just find it all unbecoming decent people. 

 

I can hope he changes his ways and joins in with decency though.  In that I wish him well. 

[Duncan]

London born, but have lived all over UK. I'd say I have "home counties" accent. Not like the queen but not one of the local/regional accents either.

 

 

ah! Right now in our ward we have a Liverpudlian "sista" and we did have an elder from Newton Aycliffe, Darlington, and both have HEAVY accents, yikes!

[Duncan]

Maybe it's because I grew up in the era of Beatlemania, but the Liverpudlian accent has always been my favorite.

 

It's exemplified by one member of the quartet of buzzards in the Disney cartoon "Jungle Book" (who, by the way, was voiced by Chad Stewart of the British Invasion duo Chad and Jeremy).

 

 

we have a Liverpudlian "sista" missionary in our ward right now,don't take this the wrong way but I LOVE her accent!!! especially the words, "courteous" and "cuddle", she is a "propa" person

[rpn]

I don't think TP ever claimed he didn't know about tithing or the book of mormon.   He claimed that he didn't know that the book of mormon was not translated from plates of gold and he didn't know that adam and eve didn't really live 6000 years ago, and that the Book of Abraham was not translated from the papyri.   It was in learning that the things he believed to be true were actually false that he finds the fraud.   (No I do not believe those claims are false.)

 

So I don't think Rueben's comments fairly acknowledge TP's claims.

[Mystery Meat]

I don't think TP ever claimed he didn't know about tithing or the book of mormon.   He claimed that he didn't know that the book of mormon was not translated from plates of gold and he didn't know that adam and eve didn't really live 6000 years ago, and that the Book of Abraham was not translated from the papyri.   It was in learning that the things he believed to be true were actually false that he finds the fraud.   (No I do not believe those claims are false.)

 

So I don't think Rueben's comments fairly acknowledge TP's claims.

 

He didn't know about the gold plates? I find that...unlikely to say the least.

[MichelleD]

He didn't know about the gold plates? I find that...unlikely to say the least.

No, he didnt know they weren't used or present for much of the translation process (if I understand his issues correctly).

[BlueDreams]

He didn't know about the gold plates? I find that...unlikely to say the least.

 

I actually don't have a hard time believing that one...but the 6000 yrs thing is what gets me. I haven't believed that for... well actually I don't think I ever did. To me so many of his claims take such a polarized view of mormonism (where every belief/idea is set in concrete), that it's no wonder such dinky points got to him. There is no admittance of diversity in LDS thought or belief that is actually there. Just an assumption of this is how I saw it thus this is how it is.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Abulafia]

BD, that one seems crazy to me, but he does talk about that in the podcast.

It was one of his questions which he took up line, to be told that church doctrine is that it should be taken as fact.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

What part of Reuben’s account of his experience with Tom demonizes him?  Calling someone “one of the most knowledgeable men …” is usually considered a complement.  As near as I can tell, Reuben bases his criticisms on what Tom said and did after the time he knew him

Basically, Tom hasn't changed. He's the same man. If I take him at his word, then he joined the church and gave almost 40 years of time and commitment to it because he took it seriously. He really believed what he was taught.

I know many people who really don't care if it is all true, the net benefits outweigh the disadvantages, so they stay.

What I've noticed about the post Mormon community (and it is very diverse and growing exponentially here in the UK) is that it consists of a great many that took the teachings seriously. They are incredibly hurt that the church lied to them. (That is how they feel)

Tom was informed that it would have been preferrable if he had died rather than he had lost his faith. He's not the only, one time, devout member who was told that by people he loved.

I try to understand. All my family were inactive so it wasn't something I experienced.

[why me]

What I've noticed about the post Mormon community (and it is very diverse and growing exponentially here in the UK) is that it consists of a great many that took the teachings seriously. They are incredibly hurt that the church lied to them. (That is how they feel)

Tom was informed that it would have been preferrable if he had died rather than he had lost his faith. He's not the only, one time, devout member who was told that by people he loved.

I try to understand. All my family were inactive so it wasn't something I experienced.

What I have seen is that those who believe that the church lied to them are more or less told this by others on the internet. We hear it all the time, the church has lied to people. But have they? A lie is usually found in a denial. But what has the church denied? Somewhere along the line certain things were left out of the picture. The question is why: Certainly the early members knew their early history because they experienced it. And their families knew their church history because it was passed down to them. But somewhere along the line, certain things were not broadcast so loudly. But is that lying? No.

 

And in the 70's we certainly had more information about church history than today because of the ensign. But has the church ever denied polyandry. No. And is it important to the book of mormon narrative? No. The foundation of the lds which is found in the how the book of mormon came about and its witnesses have not changed and no lie has been found.

Edited March 25, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Basically, Tom hasn't changed. He's the same man. If I take him at his word, then he joined the church and gave almost 40 years of time and commitment to it because he took it seriously. He really believed what he was taught.

 

But if tom was a member for 40 years, I can't believe that he did not read the ensign all those years which contained much history about many issues that he may now be claiming ignorance about. We all knew about JSs polygamy, different versions of the first vision, MMM, BYs discourses, etc. However, no matter what we read about history it never trumped the spiritual experience when it came to praying about the book of mormon.

[Abulafia]

But if tom was a member for 40 years, I can't believe that he did not read the ensign all those years which contained much history about many issues that he may now be claiming ignorance about. We all knew about JSs polygamy, different versions of the first vision, MMM, BYs discourses, etc. However, no matter what we read about history it never trumped the spiritual experience when it came to praying about the book of mormon.

Well, you would have to go over those 7 points and then note when and where they came up in official church publications.

Maybe, it was, that Tom, and many like him, were just too busy in leadership positions to have much time to study non faith promoting materials.

But look, his children are all active believers, as is his wife. Surely that should be a testament to the fact that at one time he 100% believed.

Anyway, part of me thinks, that Tom's actions are too late anyway. The church already is doing a lot of what he seems to want. They are increasingly being candid and open about the history.

Tom is acting at a time when the horse has already bolted.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Abulafia