Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I'd love to be a "fly on the wall" for some of those dinner conversations! From what I've heard second- or third-hand, it's a very sad situation.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 LDS Newsroom: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/judge-describes-court-case-as-abuse-of-legal-system Interesting that it mentioned Phillips as a "former Church member", seeing that, as far as I understand, he has not resigned nor been excommunicated as of yet.This might be new information.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Although I think what Phillips did is foolish, and rather malicious, at least he had the courage to say what he thinks using his own name. He could have doled out his venom anoymously. He didn't. To that extent he rises above many on this board, in my opinion.I too believe in transparency in the expression of one's opinions in public. But good grief!
stemelbow Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 LDS Newsroom: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/judge-describes-court-case-as-abuse-of-legal-system Interesting that it mentioned Phillips as a "former Church member", seeing that, as far as I understand, he has not resigned nor been excommunicated as of yet. If you're correct, I think it's easily mistaken. He seems to be former.
Mystery Meat Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 This only tells you how desperate he is. He wants to get his family back. He wants to prove the church wrong, so that they will take him back. Maybe he's done something else wrong that I don't know about, but if this is it then I can see how the church can be a divider or families feel the need to separate from an apostate, I feel sorry for him, can't help it. But that's just because I see that the church has some skeletons that need to be taken out for people to heal. That's always been my feeling. Disillusioned members need this to be done so they can heal and move on. I know the church is trying somewhat. I can't speak for every family who has had a member of their own leave the church due to these "skeletons", but in my family we had a sister leave the church because of them. The funny thing is, none of ever denied that any of them were true, or if we did it was very early on the process. We haven't told her she was stupid for believing them or that she is a terrible stupid person. Yet, still she is bitter and it seems everything she does is meant to try and prove us wrong and her right. I think you are right, they need healing. But what drives them is not the need for healing, its the need for vindication. And in my sister's case, I have no idea where that need comes from because we have all been more or less supportive of her choice, even if we have told her it was a choice. If my sister's decisions have had any impact on her relationship with my family it is not because of the church, or those who have remained active. It is because of her persistence in needing to prove us all wrong, which she will never be able to do. 3
Bob Crockett Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I too believe in transparency in the expression of one's opinions in public. But good grief!Anonymous discourse which traduces somebody's character is really despicable. It doesn't matter that the traducee is an anti-Mormon. I just can't conceive that a thoughtful bishop, stake president or general authority when asked would ever publicly admit that such conduct is to be commended.
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Hopefully the church doesn't have to worry about court cases anymore.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Anonymous discourse which traduces somebody's character is really despicable. It doesn't matter that the traducee is an anti-Mormon. I just can't conceive that a thoughtful bishop, stake president or general authority when asked would ever publicly admit that such conduct is to be commended. Well, if you were concerned about any of the discourse in which I have engaged, my name's Ken Gourdin. Satisfied?
Kenngo1969 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Hopefully the church doesn't have to worry about court cases anymore.Those who are determined to attack The Church of Jesus Christ at all hazards will stop at nothing, and will use any means at their disposal, including mounting such attacks through the courts. Members of the modern Church are hardly alone in suffering such persecution. Jesus Christ was subject to illicit legal process; Joseph Smith was subject to illicit legal process. We're in good company. Matthew 511 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. 2
Bob Crockett Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Well, if you were concerned about any of the discourse in which I have engaged, my name's Ken Gourdin. Satisfied? I am not satisified, nor am I dissatisfied. I criticize the practice of anonymous posting, including anonymous posting with one's real name hauled out once in a while, but I don't criticize any individual poster for the practice unless they're coming after me. I am not in their shoes to do so. I will criticize a bulk practice, and I think it unfair to say mean things about Mr. Phillips anonymously.
Gray Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Someone needs to tap Phillips gently on the shoulder and tell him to cut his losses. Apparently he's planning on continuing to pursue action (in other words, tilt at windmills)?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 LDS Newsroom: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/judge-describes-court-case-as-abuse-of-legal-system Interesting that it mentioned Phillips as a "former Church member", seeing that, as far as I understand, he has not resigned nor been excommunicated as of yet.This is from the Deseret News story: Prior to the first hearing, the LDS Church filed an application with the court asking the judge to summarily dismiss the summonses, arguing that they were abusive and contemptuous."This is no more than a vexatious publicity stunt by Thomas Phillips, a disgruntled former member of the church, who in any event does not appear to be authorized to engage in litigation in England," the church's filing said. (Emphasis mine) So the Church's court filing also referred to him as a "former member."
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Someone needs to tap Phillips gently on the shoulder and tell him to cut his losses. Apparently he's planning on continuing to pursue action (in other words, tilt at windmills)? More than ever, it is seeming like a pathological obsession. 1
Abulafia Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) If the church had given fuller disclosure on it's history I'm sure Tom and the other complainants wouldn't have felt defrauded. Surely, the positive message that could and should come from this, is that in order not to hurt people who have given years of service to the church, in good faith and trusting that they were being dealt with openly and honestly, the church needs to be more proactive in dealing openly and honestly with investigators, particularly those with limited access to information. Edited March 20, 2014 by Abulafia
David T Posted March 20, 2014 Author Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Is there a procedure for excommunication by fiat by the FP/Twelve? As in, is it theoretically possible to happen without calling for, inviting to, and convening a disciplinary council if it comes from the highest level? The question is, could he have been excommunicated without notice or ability to appeal?They are referring to him as a former member. He insists he is still a member and has not been excommunicated, or summoned to a council. Which is accurate? Edited March 20, 2014 by David T
Popular Post Danzo Posted March 20, 2014 Popular Post Posted March 20, 2014 If the church had given fuller disclosure on it's history I'm sure Tom and the other complainants wouldn't have felt defrauded.Surely, the positive message that could and should come from this, is that in order not to hurt people who have given years of service to the church, in good faith and trusting that they were being dealt with openly and honestly, the church needs to be more proactive in dealing openly and honestly with investigators, particularly those with limited access to information. Somehow, I don't think it would have mattered much what disclosure anyone had been given. 5
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Is there a procedure for excommunication by fiat by the FP/Twelve? As in, is it theoretically possible to happen without calling for, inviting to, and convening a disciplinary council if it comes from the highest level? The question is, could he have been excommunicated without notice or ability to appeal?They are referring to him as a former member. He insists he is still a member and has not been excommunicated, or summoned to a council. Which is accurate?If so, it is contrary to the understanding I've always had. It was my impression a disciplinary council must be convened by the individual's own bishop or stake president. Perhaps that happened in this case. The individual can refuse to appear. The council could then go on in his absence.
David T Posted March 20, 2014 Author Posted March 20, 2014 So unless there was an abnormality in procedure, he likely is not technically a former member yet.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) If the church had given fuller disclosure on it's history I'm sure Tom and the other complainants wouldn't have felt defrauded.Surely, the positive message that could and should come from this, is that in order not to hurt people who have given years of service to the church, in good faith and trusting that they were being dealt with openly and honestly, the church needs to be more proactive in dealing openly and honestly with investigators, particularly those with limited access to information.What was not disclosed to him that should have been? That Mormonism is false? That the Book of Mormon is not authentic? Those are matters of religious belef. Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 So unless there was an abnormality in procedure, he likely is not technically a former member yet.I'm saying that a council could have convened in his absence upon his refusal to appear and excommunicated him.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I am not satisified, nor am I dissatisfied. I criticize the practice of anonymous posting, including anonymous posting with one's real name hauled out once in a while, but I don't criticize any individual poster for the practice unless they're coming after me. I am not in their shoes to do so. I will criticize a bulk practice, and I think it unfair to say mean things about Mr. Phillips anonymously.If I've been "mean [and] ... unfair" to Mr. Phillips, I'm afraid I'll simply have to plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the court. One is absolutely free to add one's voice to the public discourse, and no one should be shouted down because of the content of his contribution; nor do I think that the Church or its leaders are completely exempt from potential criticism However, simply saying that one's voice should be heard does not mean that one should be shielded from critical commentary regarding his methods, his motives, and his reasoning. I don't believe I've ever attacked Mr. Phillips personally; if anyone is aware of any instance in which that is the case, feel absolutely free to point it out to me and I'll be happy to retract it. Mr. Phillips has more than enough allies. He should not be allowed uncontested slam dunks to say inaccurate, inflammatory things about the Church of Jesus Christ or to say defamatory things about its leaders and members. (And he certainly never should have been provided a court of law as a forum to do so.) And I will continue to feel absolutely free to raise my voice in protest, dissent, and disagreement any time he or any of his allies does so.
Abulafia Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 What was not disclosed to him that should have been? That Mormonism is false? That the Book of Mormon is not authentic? Those are matters of religious belef.Is this about Mormonism being false or about whether certain facts were not disclosed to Tom. My parent's were not told that blacks could not hold the priesthood, neither were they told about Joseph's practice of polygamy or polyandry. Would they have joined had they known these things? My mother tells me, no.I admire those who join the church already knowing the complexity of it's history. These are the strong ones. It does no good to hide historical truths ( as far as they can be ascertained) from investigators.The church will just end up with more disgruntled, unhappy members.
why me Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 If the church had given fuller disclosure on it's history I'm sure Tom and the other complainants wouldn't have felt defrauded.Surely, the positive message that could and should come from this, is that in order not to hurt people who have given years of service to the church, in good faith and trusting that they were being dealt with openly and honestly, the church needs to be more proactive in dealing openly and honestly with investigators, particularly those with limited access to information.It is rather difficult to give a full account of any history. what facts should be given about church history? What facts should be omitted? Something needs to be omitted or we would have a 2000 page history book and even then someone would discover a fact that was omitted. How many anglicans know their history? Does the church have a book on its history? How many catholics know their history? Has the vatican published a book on its history? And what does it mean to be dealt with honestly and openly? Can you give me an example on how this is done? The lesson to be learned from this is to weigh one's options carefully. This case could never be won given the precedent it would have set. As you know there would be the English Defense League in the wings ready to sue the leading muslim clerics in the UK for fraud. Prove the koran true?
why me Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Is this about Mormonism being false or about whether certain facts were not disclosed to Tom. My parent's were not told that blacks could not hold the priesthood, neither were they told about Joseph's practice of polygamy or polyandry. Would they have joined had they known these things? My mother tells me, no. What else should be told? Should new investigators to catholicism be told about all the antipopes? What about the digging up of the bones of one pope and having that pope put on trial? Should the new investigators to catholicism be told that fact? What facts would need to be told? How much should any church tell of its past? Joseph practicing polygamy is in section 132. And polyandry is there too. If the spirit would have still testified to your mom and dad, she and he would have most likely still joined. Edited March 20, 2014 by why me
Danzo Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Is this about Mormonism being false or about whether certain facts were not disclosed to Tom. My parent's were not told that blacks could not hold the priesthood, neither were they told about Joseph's practice of polygamy or polyandry. Would they have joined had they known these things? My mother tells me, no.I admire those who join the church already knowing the complexity of it's history. These are the strong ones. It does no good to hide historical truths ( as far as they can be ascertained) from investigators.The church will just end up with more disgruntled, unhappy members. So you are in favor of all converts signing a disclosure list say they know everything. Perhaps they can initial each point to be sure. This list would, of course, have to be reviewed by all critics to test for completeness. Maybe we should have them take a test to see if they know everything (they should be able to quote from the smoot hearnings) Maybe a list of required reading (brodie? tanner?) Maybe they should be tested once a year just to make sure they remember everything? Maybe they should have a degree in mormon studies?
Recommended Posts