Tom Phillips Case Thrown Out

[why me]

Anyway, part of me thinks, that Tom's actions are too late anyway. The church already is doing a lot of what he seems to want. They are increasingly being candid and open about the history.

Tom is acting at a time when the horse has already bolted.

I think that the church is just going back to what it once was. More inclusive in its history. I am find it rather interesting that much of what the church is now saying was known in the 70s and early 80s because of church publications. Leonard Arrington was the church historian and he had some influence with ensign articles back then. So, there is basically not that much new. But of course the JSPs are a great endeavor the likes of which we haven't seen in the past.

[BlueDreams]

BD, that one seems crazy to me, but he does talk about that in the podcast.

It was one of his questions which he took up line, to be told that church doctrine is that it should be taken as fact.

 

I don't doubt that there are those up (and down) the line that believe it. I  still remember getting this Old Testament chronology template in Seminary with the dates stretching back to the 6k yr template. But it's not the fact that he found people up the line that told him it was doctrine. It's that he took it as fact period and assumed that just because someone said it was doctrine, it was. Frankly, an apostle himself could tell me and I'd ask the same thing: how do we know? The answer is spotty and not based on anything important or solid....so I feel no need to believe it, no matter how much he or anyone else purports it's doctrine. No matter who he heard it from, what stands out to me is what that says about his mentality in finding answers, assumptions of truth/fact, etc that led to a loss of faith as well as continues many of his problems. I don't think his perspective is all that original (some of his tactics are definitely taken to an extreme). It's something that I've heard and seen in others as well and they're often either very staunch in the LDS beliefs or falling away. They're running with a certain schema of the church that is heavily inflexible. When it works, it's just fine. When it doesn't....well, the aftermath ain't pretty. Sometimes I wonder if some of the social problems they face after is because many of their family/friends that they're closest to probably had similar outlooks.

 

Luckily, as you pointed out, he is running behind the race on many of his concerns anyways....though probably not to his liking of what he views as "objective" truth. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Duncan]

One of my favourite talks is from Pres. Packer. I don't know if Tom Phillips falls into this scenario but this is something I see in the Church

 

"Some time ago I interviewed a young bishop in Brazil. He was twenty-seven years old. I was impressed that he possessed every attribute of a successful Church leader—humility, testimony, appearance, intelligence, spirituality. Here, I thought, is a young man with a great future in the Church.

I asked myself, as I looked at him, “What will his future be? What will we do for him? What will we do to him?” In my mind I outlined the years ahead.

He will be a bishop for perhaps six years, then he will be thirty-three years old. He will then serve eight years on a stake high council and five years as a counselor in the stake presidency. At forty-six he will be called as a stake president. We will release him after six years to become a regional representative, and he will serve for five years. That means he will have spent thirty years as an ideal, the example to follow, the image, the leader.

However, in all that time, he will not have attended three Gospel Doctrine classes in a row, nor will he have attended three priesthood quorum lessons in a row.

Brethren, do you see yourselves in this illustration?

Unless he knew the fundamental principles of the gospel before his call, he will scarcely have time to learn them along the way. Agendas, meetings, and budgets and buildings will take up his time. These things are not usually overlooked.

But the principles are overlooked—the gospel is overlooked, the doctrine is overlooked. When that happens, we are in great danger! We see the evidence of it in the Church today."

[Scott Lloyd]

Has "Mormon Think" weighed in on Phillips's recent failure?

 

I just checked the website out of curiosity. Nothing about that on the site's "What's New?" section. That's where I could expect to find anything on it, right?

 

Do they plan to stand by their man, so to speak?

 

Will there be any fundraising appeals on behalf of Phillips, not by Mormon Think, perhaps, but by others?

 

ETA:

 

 

I also checked Phillips's web page on that site.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Has "Mormon Think" weighed in on Phillips's recent failure?

 

I just checked the website out of curiosity. Nothing about that on the site's "What's New?" section. That's where I could expect to find anything on it, right?

 

Do they plan to stand by their man, so to speak?

 

Will there be any fundraising appeals on behalf of Phillips, not by Mormon Think, perhaps, but by others?

 

ETA:

 

 

I also checked Phillips's web page on that site.

 

I just popped in to see if there was anything I could find.  Mormonthink links a SLTrib article about it on March 20th in the Mormonism in the News page.  But that's all I've seen.

[Abulafia]

Scott, David Twede wrote a response as did Steve Bloor.

[cdowis]

One of my favourite talks is from Pres. Packer. I don't know if Tom Phillips falls into this scenario but this is something I see in the Church

 

 

This falls into the fallacy that the brethren with high office are more worthy than the rest of us.  Worse is the one who seeks high office to prove himself worthy, and when he gets it, it destroys him because he thinks he is special.  But that is the exception.  Most of the leaders teach me a real lesson in humility.

 

When I was a teenager, I had a high counselor chastise me over a minor infraction,  I politely asked him to tell my bishop and I would discuss it with him.

Edited March 26, 2014 by cdowis

[Duncan]

This falls into the fallacy that the brethren with high office are more worthy than the rest of us.  Worse is the one who seeks high office to prove himself worthy, and when he gets it, it destroys him because he thinks he is special.

 

When I was a teenager, I had a high counselor chastise me over a minor infraction,  I politely asked him to tell my bishop and I would discuss it with him.

 

 

read my signature. I know what you mean, I got put on informal probation for 2 months for passing out at a dance when I was 16

[Thinking]

Anyway, part of me thinks, that Tom's actions are too late anyway. The church already is doing a lot of what he seems to want. They are increasingly being candid and open about the history.

Tom is acting at a time when the horse has already bolted.

 

Did the Church know what Tom was planning and used the essays as a preemptive strike? Are the essays evidence that Tom's criticism is valid?

[Thinking]

But somewhere along the line, certain things were not broadcast so loudly. But is that lying? No.

 

Or not broadcast at all. Surely you have heard of a lie of omission.

 

And in the 70's we certainly had more information about church history than today because of the ensign. But has the church ever denied polyandry. No. And is it important to the book of mormon narrative? No. The foundation of the lds which is found in the how the book of mormon came about and its witnesses have not changed and no lie has been found.

 

Since you mentioned polyandry, I did a search for it on lds.org. Here are the results.

[Calm]

Did the Church know what Tom was planning and used the essays as a preemptive strike? Are the essays evidence that Tom's criticism is valid?

The new vision for the gospel topics was started a few years ago, don't know when the essay were written, but it seems likely the idea that they were to be written came prior to that. The essays are much closer in purpose to the Swedish Rescue effort, IMO and with the questions that were raised there rather than by the fraud squad.

Bad, bad, bad autocorrect...definite gremlin on that one.

Edited March 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

I think the point is, since Mr. Phillips pursued legal action harmful to the LDS Church, they might be wonted to remove his membership based upon that attempted harm.

Your employer can separate you for taking adverse action, except where whistleblower statutes protect you. I would think the LDS Church could do likewise.

Sure... But your employer can't fire you if you have already left.

Excommunication is about repentance and protecting the church.

This guy is not engaging in the repentance process and he has already openly separated himself from the church.

An excommunication would be moot.

If he were seeking re-fellowship it might be needed.

Or if he was doing what he is doing claiming to be a member in good standing it might be needed.

So far neither of these Re happening.

[cdowis]

Or not broadcast at all. Surely you have heard of a lie of omission.

 

 

Have you heard of the logical flaw (a pretense that it is a valid argument) called "argument from silence"?  "The church has been silent on this issue, THEREFORE..."  

 

Logical flaws, rumor, speculation and assertions are the foundation of antimormonism.

Edited March 26, 2014 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Or not broadcast at all. Surely you have heard of a lie of omission.

 

 

Since you mentioned polyandry, I did a search for it on lds.org. Here are the results.

 

The Bible has plenty of polyandry in it.

[David T]

Here's a search for Polyandrous.

 

Which tops the list with a link to the intro to the Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, Volume 2, which does reference polyandrous marriages.

[flameburns623]

Sure... But your employer can't fire you if you have already left.Excommunication is about repentance and protecting the church.This guy is not engaging in the repentance process and he has already openly separated himself from the church.An excommunication would be moot.If he were seeking re-fellowship it might be needed.Or if he was doing what he is doing claiming to be a member in good standing it might be needed.So far neither of these Re happening.

I LEFT.

Submitted a letter of resignation and went on my way. Apart from posts here and on Catholic Answers, mostly friendly ones, I have little to say about or to do with the LDS Church.

This guy reminds me of someone I knew who was once a local Operations Manager at a company I worked for.

He'd started at the bottom and climbed through the ranks to his personal level of incompetance. From which he was steadily demoted back downward till he took a job as a regular grunt. Who knows how much he screwed up at the very pinnacle of his career, but the local VP made it clear he had due cause to have had him fired. Instead, they assigned him to a couple of different low-level managerial positions, including one he had done well previously. He seemed to have completely lost his edge and left us no real choice but to make him a regular line employee. (No, there was no friendship between this guy and the local VP--actually they loathed each other as long-time former rivals).

For some reason--so long as the guy remained employed, even in a non-management position, the local office could not give anyone else the title of Operations Manager. Technically--HE WAS STILL the Ops Manager. The other guy, hired to replace him, had to deal with the title of 'Assistant Ops Mgr'.

And the guy who "wasn't an Ops Manager" but who was somehow squatting on that title, was a royal pain to supervise. Broke all kinds of Company rules as I recall, and collected lots of disciplinary actions, but somehow never got fired or even brought into the office for a conversation. Anyone else would have been separated post-haste. It was obvious he was engaged in petty behavior designed to 'punish' the local office for his series of demotions.

He finally voluntarily quit and the "Assistant Operations Manager" got promoted the following week. And the guy who had 'squatted' on the Operations Manager title for years? He suddenly rediscovered his edge and worked in managerial positions in other firms for several years. I've run into him on-and-off.

Oddly, it seems to me this guy was named 'Tom' as well.

Anyhow--it looks to me as if this LDS Tom needs to make a clean break. A lot tougher for him to do since he has family in the Church, but he needs to get shed of the Mormon Church.

[Thinking]

Here's a search for Polyandrous.

 

Which tops the list with a link to the intro to the Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, Volume 2, which does reference polyandrous marriages.

 

One result, recently added.

[David T]

Just re-read this talk this morning by Elder Packer, and I thought this particular passage may be relevant to the discussion as to how the GAs view Tom Phillips, especially if they have no interest in giving him an audience before a Stake Disciplinary Council:

 

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. “He is not a member of the Church,” President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he had not heard of his excommunication. “He has excommunicated himself,” President Moyle responded. “He has cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn’t matter that much; he has cut himself off from the Spirit of the Lord.”

[David T]

One result, recently added.

 

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the intro to Journals 2 is indeed the very first time the Church candidly published anything on the subject of polyandry. It was included in search results as soon as the content from Journals 2 went online the JSPP website sometime a year or two ago.

[Duncan]

Just re-read this talk this morning by Elder Packer, and I thought this particular passage may be relevant to the discussion as to how the GAs view Tom Phillips, especially if they have no interest in giving him an audience before a Stake Disciplinary Council:

 

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. “He is not a member of the Church,” President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he had not heard of his excommunication. “He has excommunicated himself,” President Moyle responded. “He has cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn’t matter that much; he has cut himself off from the Spirit of the Lord.”

 

 

that falls in line with "amen to the priesthood" line

[MiserereNobis]

Have you heard of the logical flaw (a pretense that it is a valid argument) called "argument from silence"?  "The church has been silent on this issue, THEREFORE..."  

 

 

In Roman law, silence meant consent.  This adds an interesting dimension to Jesus's silence when being question by Pilate.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not saying anything about the Mormon church one way or another.  I just thought I'd bring up this interesting tidbit of info.

 

Logical flaws, rumor, speculation and assertions are the foundation of antimormonism.

 

...the foundations of all internet discussion boards, you mean

[MiserereNobis]

Just re-read this talk this morning by Elder Packer, and I thought this particular passage may be relevant to the discussion as to how the GAs view Tom Phillips, especially if they have no interest in giving him an audience before a Stake Disciplinary Council:

 

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. “He is not a member of the Church,” President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he had not heard of his excommunication. “He has excommunicated himself,” President Moyle responded. “He has cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn’t matter that much; he has cut himself off from the Spirit of the Lord.”

 

Interesting!  I just asked a question similar to this on the confession and confessional seal thread.  I was wondering if there was "automatic" (latae sententiae, in Catholicism) excommunication where the act of the person excommunicates themselves without any need for a judgement or tribunal.

 

Is this story indicative or is it more of a story, urban legend, etc?

 

[The Nehor]

In Roman law, silence meant consent.  This adds an interesting dimension to Jesus's silence when being question by Pilate.

So when Pilate asked him, "What is truth?" And he refused to reply he was consenting to the idea that there is no truth?

[Tacenda]

I LEFT.

Submitted a letter of resignation and went on my way. Apart from posts here and on Catholic Answers, mostly friendly ones, I have little to say about or to do with the LDS Church.

This guy reminds me of someone I knew who was once a local Operations Manager at a company I worked for.

He'd started at the bottom and climbed through the ranks to his personal level of incompetance. From which he was steadily demoted back downward till he took a job as a regular grunt. Who knows how much he screwed up at the very pinnacle of his career, but the local VP made it clear he had due cause to have had him fired. Instead, they assigned him to a couple of different low-level managerial positions, including one he had done well previously. He seemed to have completely lost his edge and left us no real choice but to make him a regular line employee. (No, there was no friendship between this guy and the local VP--actually they loathed each other as long-time former rivals).

For some reason--so long as the guy remained employed, even in a non-management position, the local office could not give anyone else the title of Operations Manager. Technically--HE WAS STILL the Ops Manager. The other guy, hired to replace him, had to deal with the title of 'Assistant Ops Mgr'.

And the guy who "wasn't an Ops Manager" but who was somehow squatting on that title, was a royal pain to supervise. Broke all kinds of Company rules as I recall, and collected lots of disciplinary actions, but somehow never got fired or even brought into the office for a conversation. Anyone else would have been separated post-haste. It was obvious he was engaged in petty behavior designed to 'punish' the local office for his series of demotions.

He finally voluntarily quit and the "Assistant Operations Manager" got promoted the following week. And the guy who had 'squatted' on the Operations Manager title for years? He suddenly rediscovered his edge and worked in managerial positions in other firms for several years. I've run into him on-and-off.

Oddly, it seems to me this guy was named 'Tom' as well.

Anyhow--it looks to me as if this LDS Tom needs to make a clean break. A lot tougher for him to do since he has family in the Church, but he needs to get shed of the Mormon Church.

Oh, then it must be him, lol.

[why me]

Anyhow--it looks to me as if this LDS Tom needs to make a clean break. A lot tougher for him to do since he has family in the Church, but he needs to get shed of the Mormon Church.

I think that for some lds members who no longer believe, excommunication is far better. They become martyrs. Sending in a resignation letter does not have the same 'pow' impact with the ex-lds crowd. .