I really hope this doesn't come across wrong. There are so many ways I could say this slightly wrong and say the wrong thing. I'm probably a fool for even trying to post this - but I find it fascinating so here goes.

First - this is no disrespect to AnnointedOne - I'm very impressed with everything I've seen about Tom.

Here's what I find interesting - all the shout outs and attention here on RFM. The number of threads on RFM titled "@annointedone ...".

What I find fascinating is my conjecture is that it is because Tom was so high up in the church. It's like even though we are exmo's we still reverence someone just because of their high priesthood station. (I find myself doing it as well.)

I think it says some interesting things about human nature and how much we naturally look up to authority. I think it also says a lot about why it is so easy for the LDS church to be so authoritarian in regard to it's leaders being revered by the members.

I'm NOT saying there is anything wrong with it.

Am I just nuts?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2013 05:13PM by bc.

But isn't it true that the questions directed to him usually have to do with second anointings or inner circle type stuff? Things he has first-hand knowledge about?

Or maybe I'm wrong, I admit I don't read every thread.

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to - I thought of that too when I was posting. Maybe that is the case - I haven't paid enough attention to notice the trend. I believe the last couple weren't that way.

I think it's just because he has more "fire power" than the rest of us.

As the new editor of Mormon Think he has a lot of credibility and is a good media liaison, in my opinion. I don't think that it is necessarily undue, although I appreciate where you are coming from.

I think that the distinction between "exMormon royalty" and genuine key players is that "exMormon royalty" considers itself superior/special. Key players who deserve respect get it b/c they merit it ("exMormon royalty" demands it).

Tom has never demanded such treatment/respect. His actions, integrity, etc. are what make him so approchable, liked, respected, etc.

I noticed the trend long before his becoming editor of MormonThink. I haven't noticed any significant difference before/after.

I agree that Tom has never been inappropriate or in any way looking for attention - if anything he seems to try to avoid it.

With that said - I certainly may just be making a fake connection that isn't really there based on my own biases.

Part of it is observing how differently people have interacted with my based on whether I have been in a leadership position or not both in church and at work. The most extreme I've ever seen was probably on my mission - I was the junior companion to the zone leader (because he was going home that month - but most people in the zone didn't realize that was what was going on.) When he left I became zone leader and it was really, really weird how differently everyone acted around me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2013 05:24PM by bc.

I hear you. It is just an additional reason for his popularity, so to speak.

Maybe it is his accent?

Anointed One the Father
Raptor Jesus the Son
I'm just looking for the HG to finish off my Trinity

Oh, oh, pick me! XP



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2013 05:30PM by 2humble4u.

Heh!

Every forum I've ever been on has their "anointed ones" (and I use the term more literally instead of as a screen name in this case :) )

Mormons have their royalty, forums have theirs. On this forum, I think anointedone and Steve Benson have particular clout, probably stemming from their respective positions in the church.

Whether or not the admiration is deserved, I don't want to get in to. But this sort of thing is very common on internet forums.

Right. What I find interesting is that the clout on the forum maybe ties in with the previous clout in the Mormon church.

It's really impossible to know if there is really anything to it:

A) The sample size is way too small
B) There are other dependent variables - Steve is a research king and, as Citizen says, Tom has a really cool accent (among other things.)

Common among chimps, too...

Argument from authority, ears perk up and backs straiten.

Appeal to authority, minds close and backs turn.

Tom has proven himself reliable and tenacious. I for one respect his efforts and I even deffer to his experience. It doesn't mean that the old axiom trust but verify doesn't apply, it just means that it isn't my first thought when he speaks.

Agreed

Tom Phillips knows the whole deal. To hear him relate his story is like hearing one of the astronauts talk about what it's like on the moon, or someone from a concentration camp talk about what daily life was like. He knows where the cat's buried!

Because he was so high up in the church, it shows that it's possible for even the most devout Mormons to see the truth and for the church to be brought down - something more than a few of us wish for.

Perhaps in some way, some of us project onto him, our sense of wanting retribution for what we've lost in time, money and soul.

But any honor he receives, he deserves, as do D. Michael Quinn, Grant Palmer, the September Six and others.

Another common denominator is that AnointedOne (Tom), Benson, and Tal Bachman when he was a regular here post with their REAL names. From pretty early on in his posting here, Tom identified himself by his full name. That brings with it a lot of heat from the believers, apologists, and TheBrethren, but it also gives them credibility.

Said another way...

BC, I really enjoy your posts and admire how willing you are to help others draft e-mails and provide references via links, etc., but I have no way of knowing for sure if you really are who you say you are, except for the "testimonies" ;) of others here who have met you at exMo get-togethers. If people are wary of being duped, it's possibly less of a risk to go to the posters who can be verified to be who they claim (e.g., Benson, Bachman, Tom, and now Jesus Smith).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2013 08:26PM by Surrender Dorothy.

This is why (imho)....

A regular member only knows so much about the inner workings of the church.

Just like any corporation, the lower level employees do not know the corporate strategy, long range plans, actual financial position, potential mergers and acquisions etc etc etc. An executive level employee knows many more corporate secrets. An executive level employee receives more $$, more secrets, and sees the way things really work. There is no man behind the curtain for executive level employees, they are the men behind the curtain.

So, when a high ranking member leaves the church, it says A LOT about the church AND about that member. That member has seen the inner workings. He has participated in the special ceremonies, attended the high ranking meetings. There is more personal sacrifice (reputation) for a high ranking member to leave.

A high ranking corporate official makes more waves and generates more interest as to "why" when they quit and then denounce a big company. It is would be much more interesting if a Walton family member quit and denounced WalMart than it is when a lowly shelf stocker quits WalMart. It is more interesting to everyone when a high ranking insider quits Scientology, and has the guts to share their story with the rest of us.

The church is false, no matter who quits or joins...but the insiders usually have new information to share, and they have usually sacrificed quite a bit in order to come out.....so it is more interesting.

people respect the fact that he was willing to stand up for his principles even after being in the inner circle

like William law for example, he was well respected by his peers that weren't actively trying to trash his name.


however that said, bc is right, people in general want to eschew responsibility, and the best way to do that is to follow a leader. So I think there is some human nature involved here. It's why communities form, and anarchy doesn't last. It also is pretty obviously a survival trait of a species.

edit:
I will say this, in terms of seeing this trait in other people, I find it pretty rare IMO reading here on RFM. By it nature, people that are here are people that went against the grain and thought for themselves



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2013 05:55PM by sparkyguru.

You're actually quite right. It's very similar to this Chris Ralph bit that's going around in Europe, through Steve Blor's blog. These folks in Europe no longer believe in the Church, they think the Church is lying about its history, and yet they are approaching Church leaders with their questions. They want approval from Church leaders to tell them it is false. It's rather strange and unfortunate.

Erick,

You say "They want approval from Church leaders to tell them it is false. It's rather strange and unfortunate."

I'm sorry it come across that way. We know the Church is false, we've proven it for ourselves and don't need current leaders to verify that. Those whom we once revered we now hold in very low esteem because of their lies.

However, we have family members in the Church who are still delusional and under the spell of these so called prophets, seers and revealators. We just want these leaders to be honest and admit the BoM, BoA etc. are not true, so that our families are more free to make up their own minds.

I didn't want to hijack the thread. As I was the one being discussed I didn't want to make a comment. I can learn from the perspective of others.

However, I just wanted to try to correct this one observation (seeking verification from church leaders) as I know it is not true for Chris Ralph, Steve Bloor or myself, or anyone else I know invilved with the letters.

Hope this makes sense and thanks for all the kind comments and support I receive. I only wish to respond where I am asked or I have particular information to share. The SA was an obvious one.

Tom

We are not looking for validation from 'authority figures', only an admission of the truth.

If, however, these leaders do, in fact have the answers, then just let us know so that we may 'repent' of our errors. It would certainly be a miracle if they provide credible truthful answers. For the Church to be true we have to walk 'around over or crawl under' science (physics, biology, zooology, chemistry, anthropology, metallurgy,linguistics, DNA evidence etc.) history, geography etc.

Well it is natural to be stuck in looking for authority in life. After all, we were all small children once, and our parent/s had magical, world controlling power and knowledge. They wielded it justly or unjustly over us and thus influenced how we feel about power and knowledge in others.

It can be hard to realize that as adults we too are now magical, world controlling beings of power and knowledge.
Not hard for everyone, some people run off with power pathologically. But I suspect a larger portion doubts themselves too much and are easy prey for those with the pretence of power.

And I am soooo not insulting Tom either, just pointing out the drive to look up to authority or those in control. It helps us as a species not kill our young when they look up to us in admiration.

It's just a tricky place adults can get stuck in. Seeking. Controlling. Wielding. Submitting. Etc.



Tom seems to have lots of good information and no bad intent.

Those with bad information or bad intent get swiftly picked apart around here...

People looking to authority happens a lot whether or not this is a valid example of it.

Good point in the psychological aspect of this. I also think a lot of it stems from evolution - humans were more likely to live if they went with the tribe. Also if the leader was in charge of resources - being in good with the leader would help you survive.

And it's not just limited to humans - the concept of the alpha male or the dominant female is pretty common.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2013 06:05PM by bc.

Ugh, not a fan of that word after it has been harped on for so many years around here. Before there was tribe, there was parent/s and children. No matter what the social structures have changed to and from over millenia, there is always the helpless infant and the godlike provider. Archetypes deeper than "tribe" and any man made social conventions.


ETA:
Ok, ok, let me soften my stance a little. I can see how the "tribe" would be incredibly much more important to the more extroverted than me social types.

I am such a serious introvert that I have to reach for the deeper archetypes of parent-child to have any idea how such would be extrapolated to interpersonal relationships amongst grown ass adults.

If on a first interaction, someone attempts to impress upon me their authority, I generally get the idea that they did not come by their status by virtue of their own attributes but by coercing others into believing them. No one has to prove themselves to me, we are all equals, but attempting to set one's self above me arbitrarily upon first meeting... That doesn't go over well.
As a short female, I myself am a good test of peoples' inner motivations for power. Before I open my mouth, I appear easily dismissed. Something about my exterior appearance doesn't match what I am truly made of, deep inside.

In a "tribe" I would have grown up around leaders and social manipulators, and they would also know me.
In the large and very random society we live in, social predators may be more common now, as they can just move on somewhere else with far less consequence than if a small tribe had banished them.
I think I am far less trusting than I would be if I had grown up with just a small society who all knew me. I would be able to trust those in charge knew what they are doing.

And I've rambled far enough to come full circle and explain my point to myself. The family I happened to be born into needed a lot more guidance or maturity and made a LOT of mistakes with me. Some very intentional and malicious, and I recognized that as a child.
Hence my trust issues.


Tl;dr
I don't respect anyone who needs to ask or insist upon respect. Bluster and appeal to authority instead of apology gets people run off the board around here. True knowledge and know-how shines through and deserves its own respect without asking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2013 07:12PM by WinksWinks.

Yeah sorry if tribe was a bad choice of word. I guess the more relevant point is its not just humans - from my understanding the majority of primates have authoritative social structures. So it probably predates humanity from an evolutionary standpoint. However, with humans ability to specialize and thus increase the odds of survival by working as a group it suspect it evolution has sharpened it even more.

That's not to say that many humans aren't non-authoritarian individually - I personally have one of the least impressed by authority personality types, myself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2013 08:28PM by bc.

I think you are very astute, and rather brave for bringing it up.

Tom hasn't ever done anything to bring on this treatment. He isn't as verbose as some of our other leaders. And we do have leaders, like it or not. We are still humans.

I respect him for being here so long, being so patient and open and helpful to so many. He's very committed to the cause, and in a position to do more than many.

Thanks, Tom!

Well, I guess we need a hero or two. We need people who have "been to the mountain top." We got Tom and we got Steve (Sims). Now, if we can just get Jerrel Chesney on board...

I think that most higher-ranking LDS people who leave the church just don't show up here, but it's especially nice whenever a bishop, stake president, or especially a mission president and the like turn up on RfM.

Excellent point. That may be a much better tie than my supposition.

I've Never been Mormon. I listened to anointed ones interview and it blew me away. He was in as deep as a person could be. And now he's completely honest and very eloquent. The way he presents what is gone through transcends Mormonism. This just an amazing story of how difficult but it can be to come to grips with erroneous beliefs and begin to live a life of integrity

It's Tom and his message and the way he talks about what he went through. And, of course, the height that he reached in the Mormon church is relevant.

I just think that Tom has great guts. The higher in herarchy the more oposition someone will encounter in order to come up with the truth about the church. It amazes me that even when he could choose to remain quiet and follow the others as to dont get in trouble, he was honest to himself and decided to tell the truth about his faith questioning and exposing openly many issues.

I would like to see more leaders like him coming out about everything the church hides. I also believe some leaders leave the church and do/say nothing while others just stay in while in their hearts they know better.