Tom Phillips Case Thrown Out

[cdowis]

Plan B

 

Edited March 21, 2014 by cdowis

[ERayR]

Why excommunicate him?

 

I agree, why excommunicate him, let him face the judgement bar of Christ in full fellowship.

[ALarson]

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.

 

This is from wikipedia (so it must be true, right?):

In the Latter Day Saint movement, the second anointing, also known historically and in Latter Day Saint scripture as the fulness of the priesthood, is an obscure and relatively rare ordinance usually conducted in temples as extension of the Nauvoo Endowment ceremony. Founder Joseph Smith, Jr. cited the "fulness of the priesthood" as one of the reasons for building the Nauvoo Temple. In the ordinance, a participant is anointed as a "priest and king" or a "priestess and queen", and is sealed to the highest degree of salvation available in Mormon theology. Those who participate in this ordinance are said to have their "calling and election made sure",and their celestial marriage"sealed by the holy spirit of promise". They are said to have received the "more sure word of prophecy".

 

 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_anointing

[David T]

Here's the only official reference to it in current Church curriculum, from Doctrines of the Gospel Institute Manual (2011):

 

Chapter 19:Eternal Life

"Caution: Exercise caution while discussing the doctrine of having our calling and election made sure. Avoid speculation. Use only the sources given here and in the student manual. Do not attempt in any way to discuss or answer questions about the second anointing."

Edited March 21, 2014 by David T

[JLHPROF]

This is from wikipedia (so it must be true, right?):

 

Those who participate in this ordinance are said to have their "calling and election made sure",and their celestial marriage"sealed by the holy spirit of promise". They are said to have received the "more sure word of prophecy".

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_anointing

 

Yeah, trust wikipedia to get it wrong - Those who participate in this ordinance have their "Calling and Election".  It's not made sure unless the savior himself confirms it.  (Called - first anointing, Elected - second anointing, Made Sure - sealed by Christ).  Hence many are called but few are chosen....

 

Phillips may have received the ordinance, but it's a pretty safe bet he hasn't seen the Savior.

Edited March 21, 2014 by JLHPROF

[why me]

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 think that it is difficult to say just what people should know before they join the lds church. Should they be given a comprehensive history lesson? However, what is important is the book of mormon. It is this books which gives a definition to the lds church. And its story has remained the same. Either it was written by ancient prophets or it was written by joseph or sidney. And one must pray for a testimony of it.

 

Whether BY took the priesthood away from african americans is not part of the lds church's foundational claims. The book of mormon and the 11 witnesses are.

Edited March 21, 2014 by why me

[why me]

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 don't think that the church would exclude you. I think that your old friends who are still in the church would consider you one of them. You are a good person abu. I have known you for years now. You have a good heart. What you know and who you are would be a great benefit for any ward. One does not need to do callings, pay tithes, attend the temple to be welcome.

Edited March 21, 2014 by why me

[Duncan]

Yeah, trust wikipedia to get it wrong - Those who participate in this ordinance have their "Calling and Election".  It's not made sure unless the savior himself confirms it.  (Called - first anointing, Elected - second anointing, Made Sure - sealed by Christ).  Hence many are called but few are chosen....

 

Phillips may have received the ordinance, but it's a pretty safe bet he hasn't seen the Savior.

 

 

one other person in recent times is Elder George P. Lee. He was exed but unsure if he had the 2nd anointing, possibly though

[Pepcigirl]

Quote: "Tom Phillips remains an inactive member of the LDS Church."

 

Why hasn't he been excommunicated?

[thesometimesaint]

Quote: "Tom Phillips remains an inactive member of the LDS Church."

 

Why hasn't he been excommunicated?

 

Because inactivity by itself is not a cause for excommunication in the Church.

[cdowis]

Because inactivity by itself is not a cause for excommunication in the Church.

 

Subjecting the church to possible prosecution for fraud is sufficient cause for excommunication;

[sdc999]

I think that it is difficult to say just what people should know before they join the lds church. Should they be given a comprehensive history lesson? However, what is important is the book of mormon. It is this books which gives a definition to the lds church. And its story has remained the same. Either it was written by ancient prophets or it was written by joseph or sidney. And one must pray for a testimony of it.

 

Whether BY took the priesthood away from african americans is not part of the lds church's foundational claims. The book of mormon and the 11 witnesses are.

Mormons have cited the Toyota car buying analogy ad nauseam.   'If you're going to buy a toyota, would you go to the Ford dealership for answers?'    Going into any situation, people should proceed with caution.   I did ask the "toyota dealer" lot's of questions (member relatives, bishops, missionaries) - It took about 6 months of visits from two sets of missionaries and lots of discussions and questions.  What did I get in return?  Lies or mistruths that I honestly believe would have led me to make a different decision.  I asked the polygamy questions.  (you know, more women than men that needed to be taken care of because so many men died on the trek).  Being the most prominant association to mormons to the outside world, I gladly defended with the same regurgitation for many years.  I asked the translations questions - No head in hat was ever quoted.  I asked the black priesthood questions.  'They were not worthy in the pre-existence.' 

So, is the church required to give a complete history lesson? - NO!    Should they be held accountable for truths when asked direct questions?  Without a doubt.  

 

So, the toyota I asked about from the salesman got 10mpg instead of the 50mpg promised, it had a cassette stereo instead of the 6cd as promised,  In the end, I didn't even have the promised road side assistance.

[thesometimesaint]

Subjecting the church to possible prosecution for fraud is sufficient cause for excommunication;

 

Not really. The state has little interest in deciding religious disputes. What it does take an interest in is serious accusations of criminal fraud. IE; The Church makes no claims that it will monetarily support its members in return for money. Which would be actionable under fraud statutes. Mr. Phillips has no legal claim on the Church. Apparently the state agrees.

[thesometimesaint]

Mormons have cited the Toyota car buying analogy ad nauseam.   'If you're going to buy a toyota, would you go to the Ford dealership for answers?'    Going into any situation, people should proceed with caution.   I did ask the "toyota dealer" lot's of questions (member relatives, bishops, missionaries) - It took about 6 months of visits from two sets of missionaries and lots of discussions and questions.  What did I get in return?  Lies or mistruths that I honestly believe would have led me to make a different decision.  I asked the polygamy questions.  (you know, more women than men that needed to be taken care of because so many men died on the trek).  Being the most prominant association to mormons to the outside world, I gladly defended with the same regurgitation for many years.  I asked the translations questions - No head in hat was ever quoted.  I asked the black priesthood questions.  'They were not worthy in the pre-existence.' 

So, is the church required to give a complete history lesson? - NO!    Should they be held accountable for truths when asked direct questions?  Without a doubt.  

 

So, the toyota I asked about from the salesman got 10mpg instead of the 50mpg promised, it had a cassette stereo instead of the 6cd as promised,  In the end, I didn't even have the promised road side assistance.

 

I went through at least 6 sets of Missionaries. Have heard just about every alleged "reason" for polygamy, head in hat, priesthood ban that has been put out forth by friend and foe alike. I've been a faithful member for over 4 decades now, and see no reason to not remain such. 

 

If you want history go to a history book. I recommend History of the Church all 7 volumes, A Comprehensive History of the Church all 6 volumes. For why we believe what we do a good place to start is the Scriptures, including OD 1 and OD 2.

[flameburns623]

Not really. The state has little interest in deciding religious disputes. What it does take an interest in is serious accusations of criminal fraud. IE; The Church makes no claims that it will monetarily support its members in return for money. Which would be actionable under fraud statutes. Mr. Phillips has no legal claim on the Church. Apparently the state agrees.

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.

[Zeta-Flux]

Your source, or is this based on personal knowledge.

 

The fact that the second anointing is distinct from having one's calling and election made sure is in multiple sources; where it is made clear that the second only happens when Christ himself makes it sure.  (Similarly, think about how a sealing is only valid inasmuch as the Holy Ghost seals the ordinance.)

 

As for getting excommunicated, the scriptures speak about how to get a president of the church out of the church if ever necessary.  Such a person would have had the second anointing, so it is apparently possible to do.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

The Church as a private organization can establish whatever rules for membership it wants, baring outright fraud. So yes it can excommunicate him or anyone else for whatever reason it wants. Mr. Phillips was unable to prove his case of outright fraud. Personally I think the Church should give him all the attention he so justly deserves... None at all.

[Kenngo1969]

The Church as a private organization can establish whatever rules for membership it wants, baring outright fraud. ...

Personally, I hope the Church of Jesus Christ would bar outright fraud rather than baring it!  (A concealed fraud is bad enough, but a bare-naked fraud is really bad! )   Sorry; Couldn't resist.  Carry on!  [Mods: We need a saluting emoticon ...]

[sdc999]

I went through at least 6 sets of Missionaries. Have heard just about every alleged "reason" for polygamy, head in hat, priesthood ban that has been put out forth by friend and foe alike. I've been a faithful member for over 4 decades now, and see no reason to not remain such. 

 

If you want history go to a history book. I recommend History of the Church all 7 volumes, A Comprehensive History of the Church all 6 volumes. For why we believe what we do a good place to start is the Scriptures, including OD 1 and OD 2.

Okay, it is acceptable that we came to different conclusions.   But your inference that I went to the wrong source(s) is  contrary to what has be stated time and again across the LDS community.  In addition, your statement clearly indicates the disorganization of information being offered by leaders within the church.  

If I read correctly, those that wish to understand better should bypass leaders (they cannot be counted on to be correct) and seek answers on their own.  That makes it even scarier that regular members speak each week from the pulpit.  I have heard many incorrect principals spewed from the pulpit and can count on one hand the times that an authoritative figure has stood to correct the inaccuracy.  It's easy to see how lore is passed down with 'consent'.  

[thesometimesaint]

Personally, I hope the Church of Jesus Christ would bar outright fraud rather than baring it!  (A concealed fraud is bad enough, but a bare-naked fraud is really bad! )   Sorry; Couldn't resist.  Carry on!  [Mods: We need a saluting emoticon ...]

 

Fumble fingers didn't type the extra "r".

[thesometimesaint]

Okay, it is acceptable that we came to different conclusions.   But your inference that I went to the wrong source(s) is  contrary to what has be stated time and again across the LDS community.  In addition, your statement clearly indicates the disorganization of information being offered by leaders within the church.  

If I read correctly, those that wish to understand better should bypass leaders (they cannot be counted on to be correct) and seek answers on their own.  That makes it even scarier that regular members speak each week from the pulpit.  I have heard many incorrect principals spewed from the pulpit and can count on one hand the times that an authoritative figure has stood to correct the inaccuracy.  It's easy to see how lore is passed down with 'consent'.  

 

I made no comment on the sources you were using. Only the conclusions you drew from whatever sources you did use.

 

I've known about the Church Correlation Committee for more years than I like to admit to. I applaud their work, but see no need to go back and rehearse old worn out and easily disproved ideas that some members of the Church have had. I've called Gospel Doctrine classes Gospel Rumor classes for about as many years as I've been in the Church.

 

I've never said to bypass leaders. They are there for a reason. But I do insist that anyone making any claim about the Church be well grounded in what the church actually teaches as doctrine, and what is as Brigham Young said in General Conference many moons ago. "That was Brother Brigham speaking".

[Abulafia]

Excommunicating Tom for this, or pushing for his imprisonment on the basis that he abused the law, would be an utter and absolute PR disaster for the church, and they would be crazy to do it.

Can you imagine...

*Church excommunixates man for asking them to be more honest*

I'm not saying I agree with Tom's use of the court system, but fundamentally I think that is at the heart of what he is trying to do. He is not a bad man.

[cdowis]

 Clearly you are not familiar with the history and his own admitted purpose behind the lawsuit.  It was a deliberate attempt to discredit and to destroy the church.

 

Read thru the threads on this issue for the references.

[Abulafia]

Clearly you are not familiar with the history and his own admitted purpose behind the lawsuit.  It was a deliberate attempt to discredit and to destroy the church.

 

Read thru the threads on this issue for the references.

I have friends from my old ward, who sat down and had lunch with Tom on the day of the first hearing. I appreciate from first hand sources what Tom is about.

Having said that, I do appreciate that there are people who think the church is so destructive that they want it to be destroyed. I'm not one of them, and I don't think Tom is either, but I could be wrong.

[Abulafia]

Anyone who wants the church to disappear and go away, is blinded to all the good it can and does do. They are black and white thinkers and I find their views discouraging. I do, however, try to understand, rather than condemn them.