CMZ Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Elder Holland sent me an email in response to my letter but, being the bully and coward that he is, the following prohibition notice was appended to the email:NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.This may, however, be a “corporate” notice and not intended by Elder Holland. If, so my apologies for calling him a coward and a bully. It is only his church that is a coward and bully. So, saying that a letter you send to somebody is only meant for them makes you a bully and a coward? I see this same type of notice all the time about how the contents of an envelope are only meant for the intended recipient(s). 4
juliann Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 The Trib finally got around to covering it. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57500721-78/lds-british-church-court.html.csp Just when you think they couldn't possibly make it worse for themselves... "If President Monson is acquitted, it will be a great surprise," Phillips said, "but probably because he has very good lawyers who tricked a jury."
Kenngo1969 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Just when you think they couldn't possibly make it worse for themselves... "If President Monson is acquitted, it will be a great surprise," Phillips said, "but probably because he has very good lawyers who tricked a jury." Ah, well. I wouldn't expect any private citizen with the cojones to bring a criminal prosecution in a jurisdiction where that's possible to say anything less (especially since, if one is going to comment publicly at all, he hardly wants to hurt his chances by downplaying them), and I wouldn't expect the Tribune to not quote him when he does (particularly not when the Defendant in the case is the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Mr. Phillips' accomplishment in the case brings to mind the old saying about a prosecutor being able to indict a ham sandwich (though I hasten to add that I'm certainly not comparing President Monson to a ham sandwich ... except that each is roughly equally culpable of criminal wrongdoing [which is to say, not culpable in the least]). Since, if I understand previous contributions to the thread discussing the legalities involved correctly, Phillips must prove that President Monson made knowing false statements, it will be interesting to see what evidence Phillips has of that element. (I suspect that, in both quantity and quality, Phillips's evidence regarding President Monson's alleged knowing falsity is about as good as Grant Palmer's that the Apostles "know" the Church is false, but it took poor Dieter longer to catch on because he was an outsider). As distasteful as this circus is likely to be on some levels, I hope I can be forgiven for having the same reaction to it that one has to a train wreck: not wanting to watch, but being too fascinated to look away. If nothing else, depending on how far the case is allowed to proceed, I think judges, lawyers, and legal observers in common law jurisdictions everywhere will glean valuable, "close second-hand" lessons about precisely why it is that courts are poor fora for adjudicating claimed grievances that arise out of religious truth claims. Even granting, for the sake of discussion, that the Church of Jesus Christ wronged Phillips, not every wrong (no matter how egregious the wrong claimed) has an adequate legal remedy. And surely the trier of fact who will be charged with deciding this case must know that even if Phillips has nearly unassailable evidence (which I highly doubt; how could he, and if he did, where could he possibly have gotten it?), it would set a very bad precedent (from both a policy and a legal standpoint) if that trier of fact were to find President Monson guilty of fraud. Edited February 6, 2014 by Kenngo1969 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) So, saying that a letter you send to somebody is only meant for them makes you a bully and a coward? I see this same type of notice all the time about how the contents of an envelope are only meant for the intended recipient(s).In my line of work, I'd say I receive a boilerplate message with similar -- if not precisely the same -- wording several times a day in the emails that are sent to me. It's a standard precaution in case an email is misdirected. Edited February 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 2
Kenngo1969 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Also, regarding the Second Anointing that Philips allegedly received, that ordinance, like all others, must be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise in order to be valid. I'm not sure exactly how or when that happens even with respect to much more common ordinances in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, much less with something such as the Second Anointing (which is much less common). I'll leave any judgment involved to someone who's omniscient (read, "not me"), but I do have a hard time understanding how that could be the case with regard to Phillips. 1
Duncan Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 I bet this isn't the first kind of stuff that Pres. Monson has gotten, I know Pres. Packer has gotten some legal beagles on him in the past and has made reference to it in past general conferences
Kenngo1969 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 In my line of work, I'd say I receive a boilerplate message with similar -- if not precisely the same -- wording several times a day in the emails that are sent to me. It's a standard precaution in case an email is misdirected.Indeed. I worked for several years for an agency at which my own e-mails, wherever and to whomever I sent them and regardless of the subject matter, contained such a disclaimer by default. Imagine my surprise to learn that such a disclaimer made me "a coward and a bully"! 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Just when you think they couldn't possibly make it worse for themselves...So not only is this twit expecting it to go to a jury trial, he's poisoning the well in advance in case the jury finds against him. What's he going to say if the courts summarily toss it out before it goes anywhere, as the experts are predicting?
urroner Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 "If President Monson is acquitted, it will be a great surprise," Phillips said, "but probably because he has very good lawyers who tricked a jury." I can't understand why, but the expression "poisoning the well" keeps springing to my mind..
urroner Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 So not only is this twit expecting it to go to a jury trial, he's poisoning the well in advance in case the jury finds against him.Dang it Scott, you stole my thunder. I'm going to ignore you and go to bed. Harrumph and all that rot!!
Johnnie Cake 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.The apologist and I are actually very good friends...we just agree to disagree regarding church truth claims...and yes I believe the comment was tongue in cheek...as it was offered with a chuckle...
The Nehor Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 The apologist and I are actually very good friends...we just agree to disagree regarding church truth claims...and yes I believe the comment was tongue in cheek...as it was offered with a chuckle... Hmmmmm....so why would you leave that out? Seems a vital omission. Weren't you jumping all over a Church essay a few days ago for a far less vital omission. There you wanted a relatively insignificant detail included. Then you leave out that what you were quoting was a joke. No consistency at all. Very sad. 1
escott3564 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Also, regarding the Second Anointing that Philips allegedly received, that ordinance, like all others, must be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise in order to be valid. I'm not sure exactly how or when that happens even with respect to much more common ordinances in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, much less with something such as the Second Anointing (which is much less common). I'll leave any judgment involved to someone who's omniscient (read, "not me"), but I do have a hard time understanding how that could be the case with regard to Phillips.Are you saying that you think Phillips made up the whole story about receiving the Second Annointing? Just curious.
escott3564 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 So not only is this twit expecting it to go to a jury trial, he's poisoning the well in advance in case the jury finds against him. What's he going to say if the courts summarily toss it out before it goes anywhere, as the experts are predicting? Then Phillips will have even more egg on his face than he does now.
CMZ Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Are you saying that you think Phillips made up the whole story about receiving the Second Annointing? [sic] Just curious. The story he tells of it sounds like it probably happened for real. His doctrinal understanding, however, was the type that's often connected with being "active" in the Church, in the sense of showing up at church and generally fulfilling one's calling(s), but with extremely little true individual study to back it up. His knowledge base seems primarily composed of hearsay and conjecture and passed-around "knowledge." As Elder McConkie once said, "There is a severe lack of gospel scholarship in the Church." With this unfortunate condition in place we see a very real example of pearls being cast to somebody who literally couldn't handle them so he turns again and rends them. Edited February 6, 2014 by CMZ
escott3564 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 The story he tells of it sounds like it probably happened for real. His doctrinal understanding, however, was the type that's often connected with being "active" in the Church, in the sense of showing up at church and generally fulfilling one's calling(s), but with extremely little true individual study to back it up. His knowledge base seems primarily composed of hearsay and conjecture and passed-around "knowledge." As Elder McConkie once said, "There is a severe lack of gospel scholarship in the Church." With this unfortunate condition in place we see a very real example of pearls being cast to somebody who literally couldn't handle them so he turns again and rends them.It's a shame that ordinance was wasted on someone who obviously didn't appreciate it or fully understand the doctrine behind it. 1
The Nehor Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 The story he tells of it sounds like it probably happened for real. His doctrinal understanding, however, was the type that's often connected with being "active" in the Church, in the sense of showing up at church and generally fulfilling one's calling(s), but with extremely little true individual study to back it up. His knowledge base seems primarily composed of hearsay and conjecture and passed-around "knowledge." As Elder McConkie once said, "There is a severe lack of gospel scholarship in the Church." With this unfortunate condition in place we see a very real example of pearls being cast to somebody who literally couldn't handle them so he turns again and rends them. It has also been my experience that many who were once part of the gospel and then leave it seem to forget it or misunderstand it later. I knew a woman who was active and bright in the gospel for years. She left and ten years later she was unsure whether the Church had a prophet or not. Very odd. I knew another man (friend of mine) bright in the Church. He taught me a good bit of what I know. He left and constructed the most facile life philosophy I ever heard. It was like something a High School student would come up and think it was very deep. Luckily he came back and laughs at it now though I think he is still a little embarrassed by it.
CMZ Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 It has also been my experience that many who were once part of the gospel and then leave it seem to forget it or misunderstand it later. Pretty soon the scripture that backs that up is going to come to my mind.
Tacenda Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Some ex-mormons, noms etc., think that since Pres. Monson became prophet, he never really testifies of the BoM being true, or that JS was a prophet. Is that something anyone here has noticed?
Calm Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) That some exmormons think that…yes. That he doesn't testify of that the BoM is true….no. They just haven't been paying attention: http://en.fairmormon.org/Revelation_after_Joseph_Smith/Thomas_S._Monson/Doesn%27t_bear_witness_of_foundational_doctrines Edited February 6, 2014 by calmoriah
CMZ Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Some ex-mormons, noms etc., think that since Pres. Monson became prophet, he never really testifies of the BoM being true, or that JS was a prophet. Is that something anyone here has noticed? He does have his own style. He does not like to call attention to himself but when attention is called to him he handles it the best he can. At the press conference where he was announced as the new President of the Church he first read a statement where he bore his testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel and said that he knew what was involved in being the President of the Church. He then put his statement away and went back to being his normal affable self, just wanting to chat with people and make everyone feel welcome. He does talk a lot in conference about revelations he's received, most in regard to helping another person. I think that's where he likes to put the emphasis.
CMZ Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 A quote from President Monson's most recent general conference talk to the Church (not including closing remarks): With all the strength of my soul, I testify that God lives and loves us, that His Only Begotten Son lived and died for us, and that the gospel of Jesus Christ is that penetrating light which shines through the darkness of our lives.https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/i-will-not-fail-thee-nor-forsake-thee?lang=eng This doesn't sound to me like doubt. If you mention Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon then antis say you aren't focusing on Jesus. If you bear a testimony of Jesus, and don't mention Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon, then antis say you've lost your faith in things specific to the Restoration. 1
CMZ Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 From the April 2013 Priesthood session: Lift up your voices and testify to the true nature of the Godhead. Declare your witness concerning the Book of Mormon. Convey the glorious and beautiful truths contained in the plan of salvation.https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/come-all-ye-sons-of-god?lang=eng From October 2011 Conference: In order for us to be strong and to withstand all the forces pulling us in the wrong direction or all the voices encouraging us to take the wrong path, we must have our own testimony. Whether you are 12 or 112—or anywhere in between—you can know for yourself that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. Read the Book of Mormon. Ponder its teachings. Ask Heavenly Father if it is true. We have the promise that “if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”9https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/dare-to-stand-alone?lang=eng
CMZ Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 From April 2011 What will protect you from the sin and evil around you? I maintain that a strong testimony of our Savior and of His gospel will help see you through to safety. If you have not read the Book of Mormon, read it. I will not ask for a show of hands. If you do so prayerfully and with a sincere desire to know the truth, the Holy Ghost will manifest its truth to you.https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/priesthood-power?lang=eng
oremites Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 It has also been my experience that many who were once part of the gospel and then leave it seem to forget it or misunderstand it later. One of my neighbors was a member for decades before leaving the church. We were talking and he spoke about people in his church striving to become more Christlike. Then he added, "...or more godlike, as you would say in your church." He was completely serious.
Recommended Posts