Tom Phillips Case Thrown Out

[Abulafia]

That's why I used the term unbelievable. She still has all his books now. It was some well meaning visiting teachers. It caused quite a cufuffle in our house, as did requesting that she remove the cross that my dad had purchased for her. (which she did, much to my dad's sincere hurt and disappointment).

Edited to add that this was in 1970, and she had only just joined, she didn't even know what general conference was!

Edited March 21, 2014 by Abulafia

[krampus]

one thing all of you misunderstood, was that the trial was not to prove all of those specific points as false, but that they could reasonably be determined that they might not be true, or probably not true, hence it would have been fraudulent to claim them as facts and use them to extract devotion from us mormons.

[why me]

It's a tricky one, but right now there are a lot of hurt people who feel that the church has withheld salient information from them. That's the reality of the situation. Blaming them for being ignorant fools perhaps isnt the best policy for resolving the situation, and surely we all want the situation resolved.

But I wonder how much is this self induced. For example, I go to the internet and read critic sites. I am told that I should feel hurt for not knowing this fact or that fact. And I am told that the church has intentional hidden such information. And this mantra is repeated on many sites that are critical. Suddenly, I begin to feel hurt as others claim to have felt. I go to discussion boards where I absorbed the pains and hurts of others and since I now feel the same way, I interact with them, experiencing each others pain.

 

But what if I did not go to the internet. What if if someone just gives me RSR for example. And we talk history with each other. Would I feel such pain? Such hurt? It seems to me that the pain and betrayal that people feel comes from being told on the internet that they should feel this way. And that I have a right to feel a victim of lies. If i go to the lds.org site and type in various issues, I will receive an answer that was in an old ensign article or in a talk. Joseph's polygamy, mulitple accounts of the first vision, MMM, Blacks and the priesthood etc. It is all there. Not hidden. But for some reason it really doesn't see to matter to the person who claims to be betrayed or hurt. Why?

 

But like I said: how many catholics know their history? How many protestants? etc.

[krampus]

and also, the claim with supposed proof that Monson in fact did not believe those points that he was teaching us.

[Danzo]

That's why I used the term unbelievable. She still has all his books now. It was some well meaning visiting teachers. It caused quite a cufuffle in our house, as did requesting that she remove the cross that my dad had purchased for her. (which she did, much to my dad's sincere hurt and disappointment).

Edited to add that this was in 1970, and she had only just joined, she didn't even know what general conference was!

 Well that is one thing that I had to learn about my church.  It is full of well meaning, but wacky and flawed people (I should know, I am one of them).  I can't tell you how many things that I have heard in church that are plain wrong. I have taught things that I later found out were wrong. Part of the challenge is to look for the truth in what you are taught while discarding what is wrong.  That's what you get from a church where everyone participates. You go to a class to be taught by someone who knows less than you, yet you are still responsible to listen to the spirit and learn something.  

[Abulafia]

Well that is one thing that I had to learn about my church.  It is full of well meaning, but wacky and flawed people (I should know, I am one of them).  I can't tell you how many things that I have heard in church that are plain wrong. I have taught things that I later found out were wrong. Part of the challenge is to look for the truth in what you are taught while discarding what is wrong.  That's what you get from a church where everyone participates. You go to a class to be taught by someone who knows less than you, yet you are still responsible to listen to the spirit and learn something.

Completely agree with you here. My parents only lasted 6 months, but they always loved the missionaries and provided a bolt hole for them and many, many meals (and did that for many years)! The missionaries carry with them a zeal and idealism, a surety and commitment to goodness that my parent's were impressed by.

[flameburns623]

Congratulations to the LDS Church on the dismissal of this spurious case. From a former LDS (re)turned to Traditionalist Catholic.

[Tacenda]

But I wonder how much is this self induced. For example, I go to the internet and read critic sites. I am told that I should feel hurt for not knowing this fact or that fact. And I am told that the church has intentional hidden such information. And this mantra is repeated on many sites that are critical. Suddenly, I begin to feel hurt as others claim to have felt. I go to discussion boards where I absorbed the pains and hurts of others and since I now feel the same way, I interact with them, experiencing each others pain.

But what if I did not go to the internet. What if if someone just gives me RSR for example. And we talk history with each other. Would I feel such pain? Such hurt? It seems to me that the pain and betrayal that people feel comes from being told on the internet that they should feel this way. And that I have a right to feel a victim of lies. If i go to the lds.org site and type in various issues, I will receive an answer that was in an old ensign article or in a talk. Joseph's polygamy, mulitple accounts of the first vision, MMM, Blacks and the priesthood etc. It is all there. Not hidden. But for some reason it really doesn't see to matter to the person who claims to be betrayed or hurt. Why?

But like I said: how many catholics know their history? How many protestants? etc.

Yes, but Joseph's polygamy, and a few of the others you mentioned were not there 5 or so years ago, when the majority of these members started losing their faith. LDS.org only recently added that information, I believe. And it was withheld in the RS/PH manual when we had the teachings of the Presidents about JS. Polygamy was a crucial teaching that was left out, but is in the D & C. But since it is no longer a teaching, that's probably why it wasn't. I get that.

And I didn't self induce from the internet, I read books about JS's wives and books about today's polygamists, and that's what I stumbled from.

[why me]

Yes, but Joseph's polygamy, and a few of the others you mentioned were not there 5 or so years ago, when the majority of these members started losing their faith. LDS.org only recently added that information, I believe. And it was withheld in the RS/PH manual when we had the teachings of the Presidents about JS. Polygamy was a crucial teaching that was left out, but is in the D & C. But since it is no longer a teaching, that's probably why it wasn't. I get that.

And I didn't self induce from the internet, I read books about JS's wives and books about today's polygamists, and that's what I stumbled from.

This is not true. Polygamy of Joseph was openly discussed because it was in the ensign. So we did know it if we read the ensign.

 

One of the Prophet’s plural wives, having lived three years in his home, reflected late in her life, “I have known of his outgoings, and his incomings, his sorrows and joys, his troubles and afflictions in public and in private. He was one of the noblest of men and those who knew him best, loved him most.”¹⁴

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/09/joseph-smiths-reputation?lang=eng

 

This is only one example but I do remember other instances when Eliza Snow was mentioned in the ensign. ´But I can't find it.

 

The above was a great article about Joseph's reputation. It should be read by all investigators. We knew so much back then.

 

Likewise for this article since it deals with the Johnson family. We had much in the ensign back in the day. The only think that the church needs to do is to bring back the old ensign with its wonderful articles about church history.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-house-divided-the-john-johnson-family?lang=eng

[Abulafia]

My parents never had access to an Ensign. If I remember rightly they were given cipies if the Millenial Star. Some of which are still hanging around at my mum's house.

[Abulafia]

My parents never had access to an Ensign. If I remember rightly they were given copies of the Millenial Star. Some of which are still hanging around at my mum's house.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Abulafia

[Bikeemikey]

I'm saying that a council could have convened in his absence upon his refusal to appear and excommunicated him.

Why excommunicate him?

He's not claiming to be a current member, or a faithful member from what I can tell.

If he's left then let him go.

Is the church going to chase after members who have left the church and do things we don't like? If he was not longer going to church but began an affair would we excommunicate him for adultery?

Excommunication is not simply a disciplinary process, it is a disciplinary process that is also part of the repentance process. The objective is not to punish but to help with repentance.

As TP is not active, is not saying he is active and has not expressed any desire to become active it seems excommunication would be more putative than productive.

If TP were to come to the church in a few years time and want to be in full fellowship it may be appropriate to engage in discipline at that point, however, disciplining disaffected members just because their names are stil on the roles of the church is just unnecessary.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[why me]

Why excommunicate him?

He's not claiming to be a current member, or a faithful member from what I can tell.

If he's left then let him go.

Is the church going to chase after members who have left the church and do things we don't like? If he was not longer going to church but began an affair would we excommunicate him for adultery?

Excommunication is not simply a disciplinary process, it is a disciplinary process that is also part of the repentance process. The objective is not to punish but to help with repentance.

As TP is not active, is not saying he is active and has not expressed any desire to become active it seems excommunication would be more putative than productive.

If TP were to come to the church in a few years time and want to be in full fellowship it may be appropriate to engage in discipline at that point, however, disciplining disaffected members just because their names are stil on the roles of the church is just unnecessary.

Excommunicating him may make him a martyr for the antimormon cause. And yet, it would be fitting to excommunicate him. Much better to agitate against the church as an excommunicated member than as an inactive member. And if he wishes to come back he can go through the process of rebaptism. He would certainly fair better this way. If Tom is not excommunicated for his actions it just may be difficult to excommunicate anyone. For after all, what tom did must be in the top two of apostacy.actions.

 

In fact, if he no longer believes in it, he should just resign and make his statement that way.

Edited March 21, 2014 by why me

[Alan]

I could be wrong on this, but I'm not sure he can be excommunicated.

As I understand it he has received the second anointing and has made his calling and election sure. It appears he has not blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, nor shed innocence blood so presumably this is the reason he hasn't been disciplined.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why excommunicate him?

He's not claiming to be a current member, or a faithful member from what I can tell.

If he's left then let him go.

Is the church going to chase after members who have left the church and do things we don't like? If he was not longer going to church but began an affair would we excommunicate him for adultery?

Excommunication is not simply a disciplinary process, it is a disciplinary process that is also part of the repentance process. The objective is not to punish but to help with repentance.

As TP is not active, is not saying he is active and has not expressed any desire to become active it seems excommunication would be more putative than productive.

If TP were to come to the church in a few years time and want to be in full fellowship it may be appropriate to engage in discipline at that point, however, disciplining disaffected members just because their names are stil on the roles of the church is just unnecessary.

Good point. He may well have resigned on his own accord.

I don't know what happened. I'm only suggesting possibilities as to why he is being referred to as a former member.

Incidentally, the repentance proces is not the only purpose for excommunication. Another is to protect the Church.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I could be wrong on this, but I'm not sure he can be excommunicated.

As I understand it he has received the second anointing and has made his calling and election sure. It appears he has not blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, nor shed innocence blood so presumably this is the reason he hasn't been disciplined.

Possibly.

I'm not acquainted with the doctrine or policy on that rather esoteric topic.

[The Nehor]

This is very unbelievable. You do realize that CS Lewis is probably the most quoted Non LDS author in General Conference.

Actually I believe Shakespeare still holds that position.

CS Lewis is quoted a lot though.

Edited March 21, 2014 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

My parents never had access to an Ensign. If I remember rightly they were given copies of the Millenial Star. Some of which are still hanging around at my mum's house.

I still have some copies of the Millenial Star. My favorite article is "You could be lovelier" which contains grooming and cosmetics tips for women. I think the backlash from putting such an article in the Ensign today would be hilarious.

[Senator]

Abulafia,

 

Now that you and your parents have been set straight. I would personally like to invite you and your parents to re-investigate the church and hear the missionary discussions.

[Abulafia]

Senator, dad is dead, mum is 82, and she has wonderful visiting teachers. She is also housebound.

I think that the way the church defines itself would still exclude me, but I continue in a very real sense to consider it my tribe. (Much to my husband's annoyance, who is an atheist engineer). Son is atheist too! They just dont get my interest in religion.

Thankyou though, and I do mean that sincerely!

Edited March 21, 2014 by Abulafia

[Zeta-Flux]

 

 

As I understand it he has received the second anointing and has made his calling and election sure.

 

Receiving the second anointing is not equivalent to having your calling and election made sure.  Further, this has nothing to do with whether someone's current actions are worthy of excommunication or not.

[wenglund]

 

escott: PSSsst! Look a few posts above yours! *grin*

 

Oh, and for fun, From the Trib:

 

Phillips is not discouraged by the ruling, according to a statement put out by David Twede, a spokesman for MormonThink.com, where Phillips is the managing editor.

 

"Although this ruling represents a setback for our cause, we remain steadfast in our commitment to bring the LDS Corporation to justice," Phillilps is quoted as saying. "For people around the world, this case has brought to light the truth: The LDS organization has committed fraud, and fraud is a serious crime."

 

In the statement, Phillips said he plans to pursue other avenues "for redress."

 

"My legal team will leave no stone unturned," he said.

 

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Alan]

Receiving the second anointing is not equivalent to having your calling and election made sure.  

 

Actually, I think it is.

At least that is what Phillips says he was told when he received it from one of the apostles.

I just cannot understand why no action has been taken so far if this ordinance was not the impediment. I strongly suspect it is and Phillips knows it.

[cdowis]

Receiving the second anointing is not equivalent to having your calling and election made sure.  Further, this has nothing to do with whether someone's current actions are worthy of excommunication or not.

 

Your source, or is this based on personal knowledge.

[Senator]

Senator, dad is dead, mum is 82, and she has wonderful visiting teachers. She is also housebound.

I think that the way the church defines itself would still exclude me, but I continue in a very real sense to consider it my tribe. (Much to my husband's annoyance, who is an atheist engineer). Son is atheist too! They just dont get my interest in religion.

Thankyou though, and I do mean that sincerely!

 

I bow to your magnanimity in the face of the intended sarcasm of my post.