Church Statement

The Church PR department has made a statement. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints respects any individual’s right and privilege to believe according to the dictates of his or her conscience. Choosing one’s own spiritual path is a God-given right. However, when a member of the Church persists in publicly advocating teachings in direct opposition to Church tenets, the member may lose his or her membership. The way is open to return to full fellowship in the Church after certain conditions are fulfilled, through the redeeming grace of Jesus Christ. “In view of Mr Bloor’s public statements about the matter, we can confirm that, after ample opportunity for Mr Bloor to discuss his concerns with local ministers, and following internal Church procedures, Mr Bloor is no longer a member of the Church. He was properly informed of this outcome. “Regarding Mr Bloor’s complaint of a data privacy violation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Great Britain) confirms that it complies with its responsibilities under the Data Protection Act, and has done so with Mr Bloor.” There are several obvious lies in this statement. 1. I have NOT advocated teachings in direct opposition to the Church. I've only asked questions about their unsavoury history and practises, and repeated quotes from their own accounts from the records of the Church in the past. 2. They did not follow their own internal Church procedures as outlined in the Church Handbookof Instructions. It's unprecedented for the Church to remove a member's name from Church Records without that person's express request or permission. And more, to use 'Name Removal' instead of following their own Disciplinary Procedures. Not once in the letter inviting me to a 'meeting' or in the letter notifying me if the result of the 'meeting' do they use the phrase Disciplinary Procedures or the word excommunication. They always do this in cases of Apostacy, which in their definition is "advocating teachings in direct opposition to Church tenets." Just check the Church's own General Handbook of Instructions. 3. The Church claims to adhere to Data Protection Regulations yet in my discussions with the Information Commissioner's Office they think otherwise. A simple response to the Church's Data Protection claims is why can't I have access to my own data? Why is it in the USA? Why in one letter do they say they have no information about me, and in an email from a local leader tell me the information is in Salt Lake City? They may say one thing, but they do another. This is potentially a bigger story than it first appears. It reeks of a cunning desire to avoid adverse media attention. Their response is both interesting, and expected. The Church may make assurances about their adherence to Data Protection Regulations, but in my discussions with the Information Commissioner's Office they think otherwise. The Church has a 186 year history of saying one thing and doing another. It started with Joseph Smith the founder, whilst illegally practising polygamy in the USA in the 1840s stated publicly that he had only one wife, in order to quell a popular uprising against the Church for breaking the law. The second President of the Church Brigham Young even coined the phrase "Lying for the Lord." Anyone can now see the evidence from history clearly by looking at the old Church documents. An amazing resource is www.cesletter.com & www.MormonThink.com The public can make their own minds up when they see the evidence. In this particular case they haven't even followed their own policies in regards to Disciplinary Procedures, let alone the national law. I have the evidence to prove it. If it's of interest I have the Church Handbook of Instructions stating how disciplinary action should be carried out, and the letters they sent me showing they clearly did not adhere to their own procedures. It's unprecedented for the Church to remove a member's name from Church Records without that person's express request or permission. And more, to use 'Name Removal' instead of following their own Disciplinary Procedures. Notice they never use the phrase Disciplinary Procedures, I believe in an attempt to reduce the media interest after several high profile excommunication cases in the USA which caused them enormous embarrassment in the national and international media. For example the cases of John Dehlin and Kate Kelly. Many people believe that they've not used the term excommunication in my particular case because of my involvement as a witness in the big fraud case against the Church in February 2014, in order to avoid the international media tying the two stories together.