"Mormon Reformation" Group To Post "95 Theses" On Lds Buildings On 2/16

[sethpayne]

Is the second anointing ordinance the mormon version of an "indulgence" concept? Since only mormon roalty, or the very rich are recieving this special ordinance.

I know several folks who are quite poor that have received the ordinance.

[Kenngo1969]

Query: If we grant the 95 Theses (or even, say, a handful of the "major" ones . . . or even just one of the major ones), is there anything left to "reform"?

If the answer to that question, as I suspect, is "No," this sounds less like a "Reformation" and more like an "Obliteration." That sounds an awful lot like Bait-and-Switch, and it puts the lie to anyone's protestations who might claim, "No, really. I'm part of the loyal opposition."

It seems as though it simply might be easier for them to start their own church. One wonders, given their fixation, instead, on "reforming" this one, what their real motives are.

[sethpayne]

What you have is a guy who claims to be a stake president and who claims to know what he is talking about. If you believe what you hear on youtube your problems are too great to be addressed here.

Hey Freedom,

Tom Phillips is legit and is the new editor of Mormon Think. He was an SP in England and did receive the SA. All confirmed.

Seth

Edited February 15, 2013 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

He is who he says he is, but whether he is accurate in his other claims I don't know.

Saints in the 19th century were a bit more open about the details of the temple. What Tom describes lines up pretty well with some of the late 19th century Utah accounts when the ordinance was performed much more frequently than it is today.

I was told by a great-uncle that as a Stake President, he used to have a special recommend book for the purpose of sending folks to SLC or Mesa to have the ordinance performed.

[rpn]

When that podcast happened, I looked up the name and did find a SP in England announced around the same time that was referenced. So I presume Bro Phillips was once a SP as he claims. whether the rest is true, I know not.

I am aware of a scripture that says even the elect may be deceived (though the last time I read it, it seemed it was slightly different from what is typically discussed). And I know firsthand that Heavenly Father uses willing people, no matter how flawed, to do His work.

Most important to me though is that a man who makes and then breaks the promises Bro Phillips claims he did, doesn't deserve any credibility. Seems likely that if Heavenly Father was part of his call it might well of been so Bro Phillips could be held accountable.

[Freedom]

This is all pure speculation and since this former member cannot provide any evidence, we can only take his word for it. Regardless, no money is exchanged for any ordinances.

[Avatar4321]

Have you even read the theses? Can you find one that cannot be backed by empirical evidence? Or do your warm fuzzies overide your sense of judgement. I think that a lot of his points are actually pretty solid. I think people can disagree on interpretations of facts. You can still believe Joseph was a prophet knowing that he married other men's wives or translated the BOM out of a hat. Interpret how you will, but I think it is a little childish to dismiss facts as "anti".

I don't think that Luther is going about this completely the right way, but I think we should at least try to understand what his issues are, even if we don't agree.

I don't mean to troll, and I don't intend to start a huge back and forth. But I just wanted to give my two cents.

The mockery isn't a good beginning.

Yes, as mentioned earlier, I read them. Whoever wrote it is regurgitating Anti-Mormon talking points that have been addressed decades ago. Conveniently, the decades old responses are conveniently ignored. Those so-called issues are well-known by anyone who has posted on a mormon apologetics board because those criticizing the Church haven't been able to address or come up with anything knew in quite a long time.

As for finding 1 that isn't backed by empirical evidence, the better question is can you find one that is backed by empirical evidence. Most, if not all, are complete crap. Even those that have some basis in reality are completely mischaracterized to resemble anything but the truth. Heck, they are still trying to claim that there is no archaelogical evidence to support the Book of Mormon. There are countless pieces of archaelogical evidence out there. The people writing these points might not find the evidence credible enough to believe the Book of Mormon is true, but that doesn't change the fact that evidence exists. If you can't even honestly admit there is evidence, how is any reasonable member of the Church supposed to take them seriously?

How can anyone with any knowledge of the Church not acknowledge that the list is nothing but anti-mormon propaganda? And how can we not point out that the author is so ignorant as not to know there has already been a Mormon Reformation? We are supposed to just assume that this person has some special knowledge into mormonism and yet is completely ignorant of the history and doctrine they claim to know. That would be like trusting someone as a math expert who has no clue what algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus are.

[Avatar4321]

BTW isnt it interesting how many of these so called Temple Recommend mormons participating have never been in the Church and dont know much of anything about the Church?

[nosmelone]

I have put together a word document that covers all 95 theses points. Its 219 pages mostly copy and past from FAIR and a few other websites. About 5 % of it is my opinion or stuff off of my own blog. Like has been stated above by many people its all nothing new ,besides all of these questions were put togeth from mormonthink.com so they've been in circulation for years. I am willing to email it to anyone who is interested. I will be sharing it with friends and family members and I bet $5 (I know us TBM's are not supposed to bet) that I influence more people than mormon reformation does. Lol

[wenglund]

Yesterday, I suggested to Luther Day Saint on his facebook page that since his event was scheduled for the weekend when my stake is having conference downtown, leaving the ward houses vacant, that he re-schedule for the weekend of April 6th and 7th. Luther rejected my reformist suggestion, which prompted me to post my first "theses" to his door:

1. Even though your busy-body movement wants Christ's church to make certain changes, your movement is unwilling to make certain changes.

Please feel free to help me come up with 94 more "Theses". Turn-about is fair play with this group of perpetual gripers and leadership envyers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Here is the 2nd "Theses" I left on Luther-D's facebook door: 2) Your ark-steadying movement focuses on the trite and the irrelevant at the expense of weightier matters like feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, assisting those in need, perfecting the saints, and proclaiming the gospel of Christ--i.e. things that are the very essence of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wanpaku]

Conveniently, the decades old responses are conveniently ignored.

I don't think Luther is claiming that there have not been attempts at responding to the issues. He's saying that FAIR's responses are insufficient. And if those are the best responses, that the Church should endorse them instead of letting apologists do their dirty work.

But perhaps I'm wrong on Luther's intent. I guess you'd have to ask him.

As for finding 1 that isn't backed by empirical evidence, the better question is can you find one that is backed by empirical evidence. Most, if not all, are complete crap.

I just want to be clear, are you saying that the facts presented are mostly (if not all) crap? Or the interpretation of the facts? Because there is a distinction. Let's keep it simple and just focus on just two:

1. Joseph had a gun in Carthage and shot his attackers.

2. Joseph drank alcohol, coffee, tea, and smoked cigars long after revealing the Word of Wisdom.

Those are well documented facts. Do you accept them as being true? I can respect someone acknowledging these facts and continuing to believe in the church. There is no problem with interpreting these facts as insignificant or irrelevant to testimony.

If you challenge the truth of these statements, however, I have little respect for your understanding of history. Especially since these things can be verified from Church-published and Church-approved sources.

Here is the 2nd "Theses" I left on Luther-D's facebook door: 2) Your ark-steadying movement focuses on the trite and the irrelevant at the expense of weightier matters like feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, assisting those in need, perfecting the saints, and proclaiming the gospel of Christ--i.e. things that are the very essence of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm just curious where in the essence of the Church of Jesus Christ includes building a $3 billion mall for profit.... I'm not saying that the church doesn't also do some good, but don't take this high and mighty view that the church is only about feeding the hungry and caring for the sick.

[Sethbag]

It only increases my testimony of the church, because Satan fights it so forcefully, using every trick in the book, its gotta be true! :-)

I don't know if you're serious in this argument or not. I think you're having a laugh here. On the off chance you are serious here, know that Jehovah's Witnesses were actually thrown into concentration camps by the Nazis during WWII because of their religion. By your logic, that proves it's gotta be true.

[Sethbag]

Btw, I don't think that Joseph's having a gun at Carthage is that big a deal, other than the fact that he had a gun while he was in jail (WTF?). If his death was because he wouldn't renounce his faith, having fought till the end wouldn't make him not a martyr. But I dispute that he died over his faith. He died because things he was doing both politically, and with regards to his secret combinations and secret polygamy and whatnot were pissing people off. Nobody was demanding he renounce the Book of Mormon or anything like that.

[volgadon]

Btw, I don't think that Joseph's having a gun at Carthage is that big a deal, other than the fact that he had a gun while he was in jail (WTF?). If his death was because he wouldn't renounce his faith, having fought till the end wouldn't make him not a martyr. But I dispute that he died over his faith. He died because things he was doing both politically, and with regards to his secret combinations and secret polygamy and whatnot were pissing people off. Nobody was demanding he renounce the Book of Mormon or anything like that.

I think people draw far too sharp a divide between Joseph's politics and his religion. That the lines were blurred probably scared people more than anything.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't think Luther is claiming that there have not been attempts at responding to the issues. He's saying that FAIR's responses are insufficient. And if those are the best responses, that the Church should endorse them instead of letting apologists do their dirty work.

Why? Would endorsement by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of FAIR's responses suddenly silence all the critics? (Color me skeptical. )

But perhaps I'm wrong on Luther's intent. I guess you'd have to ask him.

Since Luther apparently has concluded that absolutely none of the apologetic answers offered in response to criticisms of the Church of Jesus Christ are adequate, the odds of his agreeing to dialogue here are . . . slim and none.

I just want to be clear, are you saying that the facts presented are mostly (if not all) crap? Or the interpretation of the facts? Because there is a distinction. Let's keep it simple and just focus on just two:

I cannot speak for anyone else, but one's frame of reference inevitably influences one's interpretation of the "facts," whether those "facts" are historical or doctrinal. As Steven R. Covey used to say, "We don't see things [particularly such things as history or purported spiritual "truth"] as they are; we see them as we are."

1. Joseph had a gun in Carthage and shot his attackers.

And if I had been there, I would have given him a stool, a whip, and other things to go along with his pistol. So he had a little barely-functional (if functional at all) two-shot pepperbox pistol? (Or even if he had a bazooka . . .) So what? That's hardly what I would call a fair fight. It's hardly an adequate defense against a mob composed of dozens of people. If it dilutes Joseph's "lamb-to-the-slaughter" comment in your eyes, I'm sure you would have been much braver than Joseph was in standing against the mob. (Hypothetical bravery is so easy, after all! )

2. Joseph drank alcohol, coffee, tea, and smoked cigars long after revealing the Word of Wisdom.

So what? Joseph wasn't under covenant to obey the Word of Wisdom as it is understood today. I am. No covenant, no condemnation. I could get all petulant about that and say, "See, Heavenly Father? I knew you love Joseph more than you love me! He's your favorite!" But what's the point? That never got me anything when I tried it on my earthly parents, and I wouldn't expect Heavenly Father to be any different. If I thought the current state of affairs (that Joseph wasn't under covenant to obey the current understanding of the Word of Wisdom, while I am) was so unfair, I wouldn't live it. But I don't, so I do ... if you catch my drift!

Those are well documented facts. Do you accept them as being true?

Yes. (See above.) Why not?

I can respect someone acknowledging these facts and continuing to believe in the church. There is no problem with interpreting these facts as insignificant or irrelevant to testimony.

If you challenge the truth of these statements, however, I have little respect for your understanding of history. Especially since these things can be verified from Church-published and Church-approved sources.

Well, for whatever the respect of an anonymous Internet poster may be worth, thank you! That's dang nice of you!

I'm just curious where in the essence of the Church of Jesus Christ includes building a $3 billion mall for profit.... I'm not saying that the church doesn't also do some good, but don't take this high and mighty view that the church is only about feeding the hungry and caring for the sick.

Nobody but you, apparently, is making the claim that the downtown restoration project of the Church of Jesus Christ has anything to do with its "essence," whatever that means. Yes, caring for the poor and the needy is one of the prongs of the four-fold mission of the Church, but it's only one. Even Christ, when Judas criticized Mary Magdalene's use of expensive ointment to anoint Him, said, "The poor ye have always with you. Me, ye have not always." I always find it interesting how the biggest critics of the Church's downtown restoration seem to be the ones who are farthest away from it. If you want to live in a slum, there are plenty of places in the world from which you can choose. Happy hunting, and more power to you. You have no right to proclaim that anyone else should demonstrate their religious devotion by living in a slum.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Sethbag]

I think people draw far too sharp a divide between Joseph's politics and his religion. That the lines were blurred probably scared people more than anything.

There's a good point to be made there, and I agree with you.

For instance, I haven't got it all right in front of me right now, but Joseph Smith held enormous political power at the time of his death or in the ruckus leading up to it. He was the mayor, had been (if I recall) a magistrate, the recorder as far as land issues go, a couple other political offices I can't remember, as well as the LTG of the city's militia. It had been leaked that he'd had himself ordained King of Israel on Earth by the secret Council of 50 (wasn't this alluded to in the Expositor as well?), and he was running for President. And in all of this, he felt entitled to his authority as having been chosen by God. So you are correct that his political and religious activities and so forth cannot be cleanly separated.

While this is true, I think it is the worldy aspect of what was going on, ie: the power and political stuff, and the fear of the secret combinations, the secret polygamy and so forth, that ultimately got him killed. Not just beliefs that he held in his mind. The killers weren't going to let him go if he merely said he didn't believe in the Book of Mormon anymore, for instance.

ps: I re-read what I wrote, and I want to say that I agree with Volgadon that the blurring of the lines between Joseph's claims to have been called by God, and the political power that he had already amassed and was attempting to expand upon in the future, almost certainly scared or enraged his opponents. But it was the political power mixed with religious claims, not mere religious beliefs distasteful to the mob, that did him in, IMHO.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Sethbag

[wanpaku]

And if I had been there, I would have given him a stool, a whip, and other things to go along with his pistol. So he had a little barely-functional (if functional at all) two-shot pepperbox pistol? (Or even if he had a bazooka . . .) So what? That's hardly what I would call a fair fight. It's hardly an adequate defense against a mob composed of dozens of people. If it dilutes Joseph's "lamb-to-the-slaughter" comment in your eyes, I'm sure you would have been much braver than Joseph was in standing against the mob. (Hypothetical bravery is so easy, after all! )

So what? Joseph wasn't under covenant to obey the Word of Wisdom as it is understood today. I am. No covenant, no condemnation. I could get all petulant about that and say, "See, Heavenly Father? I knew you love Joseph more than you love me! He's your favorite!" But what's the point? That never got me anything when I tried it on my earthly parents, and I wouldn't expect Heavenly Father to be any different. If I thought the current state of affairs (that Joseph wasn't under covenant to obey the current understanding of the Word of Wisdom, while I am) was so unfair, I wouldn't live it. But I don't, so I do ... if you catch my drift!

This is actually very helpful. Like I said, I think that belief is a valid choice, and that people can have different interpretations of history and doctrine. Fair enough. I think that believing dispite knowing the controversial aspects is respectable. Denying that the controversial aspects exist or that they are just lies is less reputable, imho (granted, I'm just one anonymous internet poster!)

I think that the fundamental disconnect between Luther and many members of this board is this:

Luther says that his objectives are to 1. Educate members on controversial history and 2. Influence the church to OFFICIAL acknowledge and respond to these issues.

Members of this forum say that 1. Luther is really just trying to tear down the church by pointing out kooky history that perhaps not all members are not aware of. 2. FAIR and other apologists have answered these things already, so we've been there, done that.

I think if we can't agree on Luther's objectives, we don't have a prayer at actually discussing the validity or invalidity of his event (though it's clear that most of you will jump to it and say there is no merit, regardless of not understanding - or disbelieving - his stated objectives.

[Buzzard]

Btw, I don't think that Joseph's having a gun at Carthage is that big a deal, other than the fact that he had a gun while he was in jail (WTF?). If his death was because he wouldn't renounce his faith, having fought till the end wouldn't make him not a martyr. But I dispute that he died over his faith. He died because things he was doing both politically, and with regards to his secret combinations and secret polygamy and whatnot were pissing people off. Nobody was demanding he renounce the Book of Mormon or anything like that.

Remember, it's not like a SWAT team came in and got him. He knew that his enemies wanted him dead, was going to go west to scout out a new home for the saints. And he was across the river and in the clear when word came that some in Nauvoo were thinking he was abandoning them, he responded that if his life was of no worth to his friends, it was of no worth to him-then proceeded back to Nauvoo and surrendered himself knowing he was being taken to his death. That sure doesn't sound like a charlatan or scam artist to me. It sounds like a man who was comfortable with meeting his maker, knowing that his work on earth was done and having passed all the keys on to the 12 Apostles.

[mfbukowski]

Besides getting rid of indulgences and simony, you must also conduct services in the vernacular.

Anything but that!

We don't allow that kind of language in church.

One must have a Utah accent. One must say "pre-PARE-a- tory" instead of "PREP-er-a-tory" (that sounds too much like one of those Eastern Prep schools) and "pleasure" must be pronounced "PLAY-jure".

Of course anyone with an English accent, or one of those other weird ways of pronouncing so-called "English" is totally unacceptable

On the other hand, any other foreign language is perfectly fine, because those poor folks were bought up deprived anyway.

There are some things we simply will NOT change!!!

(For the sarcasm impaired, this is a joke. I have been around here long enough to know that some will actually take this seriously)

[wenglund]

I'm just curious where in the essence of the Church of Jesus Christ includes building a $3 billion mall for profit.... I'm not saying that the church doesn't also do some good, but don't take this high and mighty view that the church is only about feeding the hungry and caring for the sick.

Aside from your question being unresponsive and deflective of my "Theses" and tangential to the topic, it is beyond naive to conflate the spiritual arm of the Church with the commercial real-estate arm. Even still, "Reflecting on City Creek, Bishop Burton said that if he'd known seven or eight years ago that 'we'd be facing the second-worst recessionary period in our history, I may have not suggested we proceed this quickly with the City Creek project. But knowing there would be on any given day upwards of 1,700 jobs in the community — and that could bless the lives of a lot of families,' the church decided to move forward. "And when you get the secondary impact of those 1,700 prime jobs and the multiplier effect, it is a substantial contribution to this state and this community and its tax base," (Mormon leaders and SLC work together to transform land)

[mrmandias]

Anything but that!

We don't allow that kind of language in church.

One must have a Utah accent. One must say "pre-PARE-a- tory" instead of "PREP-er-a-tory" (that sounds too much like one of those Eastern Prep schools) and "pleasure" must be pronounced "PLAY-jure".

Of course anyone with an English accent, or one of those other weird ways of pronouncing so-called "English" is totally unacceptable

On the other hand, any other foreign language is perfectly fine, because those poor folks were bought up deprived anyway.

There are some things we simply will NOT change!!!

(For the sarcasm impaired, this is a joke. I have been around here long enough to know that some will actually take this seriously)

That is fetchin' unacceptable.

[Sethbag]

Remember, it's not like a SWAT team came in and got him. He knew that his enemies wanted him dead, was going to go west to scout out a new home for the saints. And he was across the river and in the clear when word came that some in Nauvoo were thinking he was abandoning them, he responded that if his life was of no worth to his friends, it was of no worth to him-then proceeded back to Nauvoo and surrendered himself knowing he was being taken to his death. That sure doesn't sound like a charlatan or scam artist to me. It sounds like a man who was comfortable with meeting his maker, knowing that his work on earth was done and having passed all the keys on to the 12 Apostles.

Spoken like a true Brighamite. ;-)

Or how about: sounds like a man who was convinced that the multi-thousand strong Nauvoo Legion would come break him out of jail if it started getting too serious.

I don't buy the whole self-sacrificing "I go like the lamb to the slaughter" thing.

[Buzzard]

Spoken like a true Brighamite. ;-)

Or how about: sounds like a man who was convinced that the multi-thousand strong Nauvoo Legion would come break him out of jail if it started getting too serious.

I don't buy the whole self-sacrificing "I go like the lamb to the slaughter" thing.

Will all due respect, your refusal to "buy the whole self-sacrificing...thing" is just evidence that confirmation bias cuts both ways. When we accept our religions truth claims, we are deluded fools. When you reject them, you are a paragon of clear thinking realism.

Whatever floats your boat. But do watch out for the rapids ahead.

[Sethbag]

Will all due respect, your refusal to "buy the whole self-sacrificing...thing" is just evidence that confirmation bias cuts both ways. When we accept our religions truth claims, we are deluded fools. When you reject them, you are a paragon of clear thinking realism.

Whatever floats your boat. But do watch out for the rapids ahead.

You exaggerate in order to make the position look ridiculous. I neither think the religious are deluded fools (deluded possibly, but not fools), nor do I think that simply seeing through some of the problematic thinking I'd inherited from my religious upbrinding suddenly turned me into a paragon of clear thinking. I know full well that the problematic thinking I've discovered and attempted to fix so far is but a subset of the problems I almost certainly have, as do we all.

With regards to Joseph Smith, he was a very ambitious man. He had this idea of himself on a Prophet, Priest, and King track. He had decided it was time to move past the Prophet/Priest phase and into the King phase. This is one reason why I don't buy the "oh well, they don't like the beliefs I hold, I guess I'll just let them kill me, as a sacrifice for Jesus" idea of Joseph as willing martyr.

The idea that some of Joseph's followers were unhappy with him running away across the river, and that Joseph expressed his disappointment with that (the famous "if my life has so little value to them, it has none to me" or whatever quote) doesn't change the fact that he was still ambitious, still felt chosen of God to rule and lead in his kingdom, and still had his sights on ever higher positions right here on Earth.

He was also dealing with a lot of enemies, and obviously this was pretty serious. He reacted badly to the Expositor, knew he'd overreached, and agreed to go to jail while they figured out what to do about it. Joseph had been to jail before. He'd nearly been executed at the end of the Missouri War. He'd come through a lot and was still alive. I have no doubt he thought he'd come through this one OK too. And, of course, there's the Nauvoo Legion that would come break him out if it got too serious.

Was Joseph all bad? Clearly not. Was he all good? Clearly not. I think the "Joseph as willing martyr" narrative is pulled too strongly from the "all good" extreme that is simply not credible. Was the guy who'd just had himself annointed king of the world really going to go down as a willing martyr to seal his testimony with his blood? I don't think so.

You have not been removed for the obscene acronym because the discussion has moved on. Next time you will be.