rongo Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Tom Phillips is no longer a member, right? I didn't think so, but then, I'm not sure. Bump. I've heard that he's still a member of record. How in the world is that possible (if true)?
juliann Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Here's a list and links to the articles in the media. So far, I doubt that Tom Phillips has gotten the coverage or response he was hoping for. International Business Times - Mormon LDS Church President Summoned to UK Court on Fraud ChargesHuffington Post - Mormon Church Leader Thomas Monson Summoned To UK Court Over Claim Of Church 'Fraud'Arizona Republic - Claims filed vs. LDS Church in U.K.USA Today - Mormon president ordered to appear in British CourtWashington Post - English court summons head of Mormon church, to answer charges that Mormon religious claims are fraudThe real story is that every article I have read only describe MormonThink as a site that criticizes the church. The attempt to sue is a sideshow, the real story seems to be that MT has blown-up any conceivable chance at appearing to be what it wants to claim to be...an objective site that is only there to inform people. 1
CMZ Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Bump. I've heard that he's still a member of record. How in the world is that possible (if true)? There's all sorts of possibilities. Some don't think their membership means anything so they don't bother to remove. Some believe in the Church despite their best efforts to not believe it. Those are just some things that come to mind.
Popular Post KevinG Posted February 5, 2014 Popular Post Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Yes it is someone that members of this board would easily recognize...but it was said to me in confidence and I'm not going to out this person... Ahhh the oft quoted Elder Anon E. Mauss.Or perhaps it was President Sam Onesaid? Edited February 5, 2014 by KevinG 6
Kenngo1969 Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Ahhh the oft quoted Elder Anon E. Mauss.Or perhaps it was President Sam Onesaid?You discovered who Grant Palmer's informants are! 2
rongo Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 There's all sorts of possibilities. Some don't think their membership means anything so they don't bother to remove. Some believe in the Church despite their best efforts to not believe it. Those are just some things that come to mind.Given what he's said/done against the Church (and how he's done it), I would be shocked if he hasn't already been excommunicated (or had his name removed). (If he is still on the membership rolls) does he use this fact to rub the Church's nose in it (e.g., that he's "untouchable" because of his claimed 2nd annointing)?
name Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Hello! Just checking in to offer a very brief comment from a never-Mo who frequents another Mormon related board: This entire thing is completely ridiculous! That's all. Miss many of you. An old friend,Name
The Nehor Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I once asked an anti-Mormon why he left the Church despite having a testimony and he replied,"Don't be ridiculous. We all know it is true but we are damned and we figure we might as well try to bring others with us. The devil asks it of us and we obey."I love anecdotal stories. Lest anyone think I made this up it is an actual paraphrase of a real conversation. To be fair the guy's mental state can be adequately summed up in this clip:
CMZ Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Given what he's said/done against the Church (and how he's done it), I would be shocked if he hasn't already been excommunicated (or had his name removed). (If he is still on the membership rolls) does he use this fact to rub the Church's nose in it (e.g., that he's "untouchable" because of his claimed 2nd annointing)? I don't know. I read all his grievances elsewhere before and he said something like, "I guess this means I'll be turned over to the buffetings of Satan and be damned for eternity." Saying such evidences a profound lack of gospel understanding. His whole manifesto did. He even admits having felt the Spirit in at least one point, but now claims he's an atheist. His manifesto read much like a teenager who has just encountered all the typical anti-Mormon claims for the very first time and then wants to DEMAND that the Church answer them. The only thing different in his case is that he's being much more aggressive about it. It's almost embarrassing that he is riding the whole "the Earth wasn't created in 6,000 years" thing so hard when numerous LDS authors have said it likely took much longer. So many of his concerns would be answered with a little reading and study, but he jumps the gun and pushes his vendetta like there's no tomorrow. "How dare Joseph Smith defend himself and the others in the Carthage Jail cell with him when armed attackers were storming?!?! That just shows that Joseph wasn't a prophet!!! And he deserved to die for destroying a printing press!!!!" Edited February 6, 2014 by CMZ
Kenngo1969 Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Here's a list and links to the articles in the media. So far, I doubt that Tom Phillips has gotten the coverage or response he was hoping for. International Business Times - Mormon LDS Church President Summoned to UK Court on Fraud ChargesHuffington Post - Mormon Church Leader Thomas Monson Summoned To UK Court Over Claim Of Church 'Fraud'Arizona Republic - Claims filed vs. LDS Church in U.K.USA Today - Mormon president ordered to appear in British CourtWashington Post - English court summons head of Mormon church, to answer charges that Mormon religious claims are fraudThe Trib finally got around to covering it. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57500721-78/lds-british-church-court.html.csp
CMZ Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Also, in Phillips letter to Elder Holland he brings up the typical anti- stuff (some of which has been around since the beginning of the Church) and demands answers from "Jeff." Elder Holland says, "Tom, I knew about stuff like this when I was 25 years old..." But then, embarrassingly, Tom Phillips says, "Jeff, how could you have possibly known about the Book of Abraham stuff when you were 25?!?! The knowledge that the papyri was just an ancient funerary document came out after you were 25! This is just one more evidence that you are lying through your teeth." Of course, Tom totally missed the point that Elder Holland was referring to anti-Mormon propaganda in general. But somehow he thinks that he just scored a ton of points against the Mormons. 1
canard78 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Tom Phillips is no longer a member, right? I didn't think so, but then, I'm not sure. Bump. I've heard that he's still a member of record. How in the world is that possible (if true)? There's all sorts of possibilities. Some don't think their membership means anything so they don't bother to remove. Some believe in the Church despite their best efforts to not believe it. Those are just some things that come to mind. Given what he's said/done against the Church (and how he's done it), I would be shocked if he hasn't already been excommunicated (or had his name removed). (If he is still on the membership rolls) does he use this fact to rub the Church's nose in it (e.g., that he's "untouchable" because of his claimed 2nd annointing)? Quick reply on this. From what I can tell, Tom Phillips has never been brought before a disciplinary court. He claims to have received the second anointing from the church while serving as stake president (google it if you're interested). If that's the case then it could be quite difficult for the church to excommunicate him without causing a big fuss, attention and questions about the implications of having your "calling and election made sure." Perhaps, like Book of Mormon Musical, they've decided that the best thing to do is ignore him and avoid giving him any further publicity. 1
KevinG Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 From what I can tell, Tom Phillips has never been brought before a disciplinary court. Which at this time would be a redundancy.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Yes it is someone that members of this board would easily recognize...but it was said to me in confidence and I'm not going to out this person...Just wondering what sort of "church apologist" would say flat out to a critic that if the Church were honest about its beginnings nobody would join it. And if he/she sincerely believes that, why say it in confidence? The whole thing sounds fishy to me. Again, if it happened at all, I think you are garbling the person's intended meaning. Edited February 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 3
Avatar4321 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Well, not to burst your bubble but I've asked my local ward several times, to please not send the missionaries up here, since I know they are co-ordinating with their ward mission leader (they told me they were) and lo and behold last week here they came again. We had an "interesting" discussion. So who's not leaving who alone????????? The one posting on a mormon message board? 3
Avatar4321 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Just wondering what sort of "church apologist" would say flat out to a critic that if the Church were honest about its beginnings nobody would join it. And if he/she sincerely believes that, why say it in confidence. The whole thing sounds fishy to me. Again, if it happened at all, I think you are garbling the person's intended meaning. It seems about as likely as Jesus being a buddhist.
Damien the Leper Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Why?To get an idea of the stress of what they have to discuss and deal with. I'm not really concerned with artifacts as the LDS church has never nor will it ever have possession of the plates, the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona or Laban's sword. Edited February 6, 2014 by Valentinus
CMZ Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 To get an idea of the stress of what they have to discuss and deal with. I'm not really concerned with artifacts as the LDS church has never nor will it ever have possession of the plates, the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona or Laban's sword. The only one I'm pretty sure they don't have is the sword of Laban.The others I'm fuzzy on. But I know there's things they do have.
InactiveLDS141 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Yes it is someone that members of this board would easily recognize...but it was said to me in confidence and I'm not going to out this person...Minus context it is impossible to credit your referrant as intending his comments in the sense you are giving them now. Could he have been saying something like:"If we allow our critics to interpret our teachings and define our history, and we spend all of our time just reacting to that--then we would never win another convert"Or perhaps, as another has suggested, he was being sarcastic or ironic and you missed the nuance? 1
tsubotsubo Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 I don't know. I read all his grievances elsewhere before and he said something like, "I guess this means I'll be turned over to the buffetings of Satan and be damned for eternity." Saying such evidences a profound lack of gospel understanding. His whole manifesto did. He even admits having felt the Spirit in at least one point, but now claims he's an atheist. What I think he means by "turned over to the buffetings of Satan" is that he thinks he might be a son of perdition since he's had his calling and election made sure, and then left the church. But he also thinks it's possible that he's still guaranteed to be in the Celestial Kingdom due to his second anointing. He doesn't seem sure of where someone in his situation would go according to church doctrine. I was reading him discussing it on another forum.
CMZ Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 What I think he means by "turned over to the buffetings of Satan" is that he thinks he might be a son of perdition since he's had his calling and election made sure, and then left the church. But he also thinks it's possible that he's still guaranteed to be in the Celestial Kingdom due to his second anointing. He doesn't seem sure of where someone in his situation would go according to church doctrine. I was reading him discussing it on another forum. That reminds me of another misunderstanding he had, where he said that claiming the Church isn't true makes one a son of perdition.
CMZ Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 From link removed: temple content I had assumed that, if anyone did deserve to have their calling and election made sure, the Lord would appear to them Himself. This guy shows over and over again how little understanding he has of the actual doctrine. This particular quoted statement is sort of right but the way he's putting it evidences a number of misunderstandings.
CMZ Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Again: According to church literature if someone like me who, as you know, has received the Second Anointing (made my exaltation basically unconditional) ,denies the Holy Ghost (interpreted as denying the church is true) they will be sons of perdition Where is he getting the idea that denying the church is true is the same as denying the Holy Ghost? Edited February 6, 2014 by CMZ
Popular Post CMZ Posted February 6, 2014 Popular Post Posted February 6, 2014 Here's another of his statements to Elder Holland: If it is because I have challenged your beliefs, you need to examine them. As though Elder Holland has never examined his beliefs. This seems to me to be one of the first tools amateur anti-Mormons use: to naively assume that Mormons couldn't have possibly examined their beliefs. 5
CMZ Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 What arrogance for a church leader to assume he has the right to decide who will go to the 'highest heaven'. Again, another misunderstanding. Even if somebody received the second anointing just by being chosen by a mortal apostle/prophet who wasn't receiving specific revelation to give that person the second anointing it is still just the ordinance being performed. It's not "President Hinckley deciding who goes to the highest heaven." Of course, he is forgetting Catholic tradition of St. Peter deciding who can enter the pearly gates.
Recommended Posts