LDS Freedom Forum

Wait a minute, I thought the church could not lead us astray? If this dude had the S.A. in the church because the leaders determined he was ready for it, then what does that mean if they got it wrong and gave him this ordinance when he was not prepared to receive it? That's kind of a big deal - to be creating sons of perdition in the church...

I'm counting on at least three possible canned answers to be posted in response to this.... lol

My Dad was ex'd 20 years ago for a variety of offenses. He turned his back on the church and presumably Jesus, too. He says he has no need for any of that stuff anymore. He does come to family events at church - he is at peace with his decisions. A few years back, he came within a whisker of dying, and even that has not changed in his outlook. Am I to turn my back on him because he is an unrepentant apostate? Not even. He's my Dad, and I love him more now than ever. I can't imagine turning your back on family over a difference in belief over RELIGION. THAT would be silly.

Jules - you are evil and wicked for even THINKING the brethren could get a decision wrong!! Where is the "I'm plugging my ears and saying LALALALALA loudly to drown out your wickedness" emoticon? ;)

Lizzy60 wrote:My brother and my son don't believe in God, Joseph Smith, or the Book of Mormon. I love them both dearly, have a great relationship with them, and I leave their judgement to God, after their lives are over. (That's nice that you don't bash them, but you certainly get a kick out of bashing church leaders. Nice "judgement". You seem to pick and choose on your application. Maybe extend that same charity to others you disagree with. It would come off as less hypocritical) They are not dead yet, and they are not mine to judge. I sincerely respect their beliefs, and I sincerely have fun times with them, and accept their beliefs. Would not Joseph do the same?

Tom was bitter before his family left. His process of leaving made him bitter. It's a fruit. One I see often. His back and forth with Elder Holland showed how immature and bitter he was. Had he not been bitter, I suspect his family wouldn't have felt a need to separate themselves from him, but I don't know, they're probably not perfect either. Being bitter is a choice. One that he made all by himself. Yes, he acts like a baby, but he's an adult and should behave better. Once he does that, and allows his children and grandchildren to be mormons without criticizing them, I suspect relationships will heal. But who knows, none of us know all the nitty gritty details.

Jules wrote:Wait a minute, I thought the church could not lead us astray? If this dude had the S.A. in the church because the leaders determined he was ready for it, then what does that mean if they got it wrong and gave him this ordinance when he was not prepared to receive it? That's kind of a big deal - to be creating sons of perdition in the church...

I'm counting on at least three possible canned answers to be posted in response to this.... lol

Like why would Christ make Judas an apostle? We gotta learn to think a bit.

But where is the LALALALALA?
Is it implied?

Shadow the Magnificent - reading minds via the internet since 2006.

shadow wrote:

Jules wrote:Wait a minute, I thought the church could not lead us astray? If this dude had the S.A. in the church because the leaders determined he was ready for it, then what does that mean if they got it wrong and gave him this ordinance when he was not prepared to receive it? That's kind of a big deal - to be creating sons of perdition in the church...

I'm counting on at least three possible canned answers to be posted in response to this.... lol

Like why would Christ make Judas an apostle? We gotta learn to think a bit.

Judas did not receive the SA, nor is there a record he actually received the SC before he died. Much different scenario and the point was clearly missed - we gotta learn to think a bit ;)

Muerte Rosa wrote:

Jules wrote:Wait a minute, I thought the church could not lead us astray? If this dude had the S.A. in the church because the leaders determined he was ready for it, then what does that mean if they got it wrong and gave him this ordinance when he was not prepared to receive it? That's kind of a big deal - to be creating sons of perdition in the church...

I'm counting on at least three possible canned answers to be posted in response to this.... lol

What does this have to do with anyone being lead astray by the church? That doesn't even make sense. I'd say to that the appropriate emoticon is 8-}

The CHURCH and the LEADERS determined that this guy was ready to receive the ordinance that symbolizes sealing a couple who has supposedly (according to the leaders) received their C&E, and supposedly (according to the leaders) was ready to be sealed with his wife unto Godhood. Do you NOT think it's a big deal that the leaders who allegedly talk to God Himself and only give that ordinance to others who are ready to meet God, got that WRONG? Maybe the church and the leaders were wrong and this man is now confused and hurt and unfairly ostracized from his community. It certainly would impact most people in this man's shoes - to be told something like what he was told by people he was supposed to respect and trust - and then find that they were utterly wrong.

You forget the agency that the guy who had the calling a election still has. He can still choose to turn his back on the gosple because of pride.

It might have been his status of being c&e that he let pride creep in to where he choice to turn his back on the gosple.

Why blam the church? They Are not responsible for each members salvation. Each member is.

Shadow - out of curiosity, have you ever heard Tom Phillips interviewed about his issues? Unless you have, it's a bit disingenuous of you to ascribe motive to his actions. I find it pretty common for TBMs to have lots of opinions about people they have heard rumors about. My neighbor is a lawyer who can talk a line of you know what, but he doesn't ever want to go LISTEN to or READ anything he's talking about (in the vein of Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Tom Phillips etc etc etc) since it doesn't come form LDStm. I hope you're more open minded than that! Come to think of it, do you live in AZ...Maybe YOU'RE my neighbor...

Duh the "second anointing" is nonsense and no more efficacious than sprinkling water on the head of an infant. It had given a lot of people a false assurance that they are sealed up to eternal life when God has never spoken it. Just another pit that people fall into.
Tom phillips will be fine and is better off than those who shut up the kingdom of heaven against men, who neither go in themselves, neither suffer them that are entering to go in...

If He is not on speed-dial to His Prophets, then why do we have prophets?

People making judgment calls on who will and who won't be sons of perdition's is awesome. Really taken the gospel of Christ to heart.

Here is what Joseph Smith said:

"They then would want that more sure word of prophecy, that they were sealed in the heavens and had the promise of eternal life in the kingdom of God. Then, having this promise sealed unto them, it was an anchor to the soul, sure and steadfast... Then knowledge through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the grand key that unlocks the glories and mysteries of the kingdom of heaven..."

PAY ATTENTION TO THIS NEXT PART...

"Compare this principle once with Christendom at the present day, and where are they, with all their boasted religion, piety and sacredness... They will be damned, for the reject the most glorious principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and treat with disdain and trample under foot the key that unlocks the heavens and puts in our possession the glories of the celestial world. Yes, I say, such will be damned, with all their professed godliness. Then I would exhort you to go on and continue to call upon God until you make your calling and election sure for yourselves, by obtaining this more sure word of prophecy, and wait patiently until you obtain it." (TPJS 298-299)


Never in scripture do I see that those who make their calling and election sure are commanded to either reveal or not reveal. At that point, it seems that God trusts them adequately to speak as they feel necessary.

Tom Phillips can't possibly be a son of perdition.

To be a son of perdition, one must "have the heavens opened unto him, and know God....He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it" (TPJS, p.358).

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=37105" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jules wrote: Judas did not receive the SA, nor is there a record he actually received the SC before he died. Much different scenario and the point was clearly missed - we gotta learn to think a bit ;)

Maybe we need Obrien to get after you for reading minds. We don't know if judas received a SA or C&E. There's no record either way. But he was an apostle of Christ. He met with Christ often, I suspect. Christ chose him. That's a pretty big deal.
But if you're going to bash current leaders for Tom, then you'll have to go back to Joseph Smith too. Some of his apostle who received their C&A left the church as bitter dweebs too. It's not the church's fault. The church did not lead Tom astray, he did that all by himself. Blaming the church when someone (whatever his status or calling) chooses to leave the church is quite an ignorant thing to do. You think agency ceases to exist? I think you just wanted to bash the church, right?

Muerte Rosa wrote:

Obrien wrote:I find it pretty common for TBMs to have lots of opinions about people they have heard rumors about. .

I find it pretty common for NTBMs to have lots of opinions about people they have only heard rumors about.

Like who? I hung on every word, hung pictures in the house and hung my head in awed reverence as they ascended the plush scarlet seats. I was a pretty good student of the LDS version of the GAs lives. I invested a lot of time in knowing what the leaders were doing and advising and pontificating - I was more than a casual observer of the brethren. I've spent a lot more time listening to Apostles and / or Presidency members in the last 25 years than you've EVER spent listening to NTBMs, guaranteed. I have a better basis for commenting on TBMs than you have for commenting about NTBMs.

Like why would Christ make Judas an apostle? We gotta learn to think a bit.

I disagree with Shadow that being a member of the lds church is some measuring stick of personal righteousness. If its short sighted to assume all members are righteous than it is equally short sighted to assume all non members are unrighteous just based on that. I think that is neither here nor there.

But, I do think shadow had a point here. To me, the Second anointing ordinance performed by the GA's is just as symbolic as the rest of the ordinances and in order for it to mean something it would need to be ratified by the HSOP. That being said, I don't think what happened with Tom Phillips proves or disproves anything regarding the GA's. Maybe these things occurred to bring about the Lord's purposes? Who knows? Joseph was inspired and in tune with the Heavens and he let that Bennett fellow within the ranks who did all sorts of damage among the early saints. And Christ did pick Judas. Joseph's standing would not be effected because those he taught failed to rise up.

minorityofone wrote:Duh the "second anointing" is nonsense and no more efficacious than sprinkling water on the head of an infant. It had given a lot of people a false assurance that they are sealed up to eternal life when God has never spoken it. Just another pit that people fall into.
Tom phillips will be fine and is better off than those who shut up the kingdom of heaven against men, who neither go in themselves, neither suffer them that are entering to go in...

That is why I see no difference between the first anointing and the second anointing. The first is sopppsed to be a conditional promise that be fulfilled by faithful obedience. The second is sopposed to be the conformation that the faithful obedience has taken place and now you cannot be left unsaved.

Evidently that is not the case and the second anointing is still dependant on faithful obedience, no different than the first.

Maybe the church doesn't see like that though. They still haven't exed Tom Phillips. Maybe they consider him untouchable because of that anointing or it would be an admission that the second anointing is not efficacious.

Obrien wrote:Shadow - out of curiosity, have you ever heard Tom Phillips interviewed about his issues? Unless you have, it's a bit disingenuous of you to ascribe motive to his actions. I find it pretty common for TBMs to have lots of opinions about people they have heard rumors about. My neighbor is a lawyer who can talk a line of you know what, but he doesn't ever want to go LISTEN to or READ anything he's talking about (in the vein of Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Tom Phillips etc etc etc) since it doesn't come form LDStm. I hope you're more open minded than that! Come to think of it, do you live in AZ...Maybe YOU'RE my neighbor...

I listened to some of it, it's hours long and I lost interest. But I read quite a bit of transcript from one of his interviews. (Off topic, but I also read a heckuva lot of DS too) So no, my comments aren't disingenuous. And just like when Elias Returns bashed his wife on this site (and whom amongst us called BS? You??), we don't have the other side of the story. It's most likely different. Some people take one sided stories as gospel truth. You should've learned your lesson by now. Here's a bit of a help for the gullible.
In every argument there are three things to know.
1- There's person A's version.
2- There's person B's version.
3- The whole truth typically isn't found in either 1 or 2.

We have toms version. And he's bitter. Plus, to place more doubt on his reliability, he claims JS is a fraud as well as the BOM (and the P of GP) But you take his word as gospel truth. Who's the disingenuous one? If that's being open minded, then no, by YOUR definition I guess I'm not.
Maybe I'm like your neighbor, I don't know who he is so I can't say. But one thing is for sure- I didn't check my BS meter at the door like so many here have.

Thomas wrote:

minorityofone wrote:Duh the "second anointing" is nonsense and no more efficacious than sprinkling water on the head of an infant. It had given a lot of people a false assurance that they are sealed up to eternal life when God has never spoken it. Just another pit that people fall into.
Tom phillips will be fine and is better off than those who shut up the kingdom of heaven against men, who neither go in themselves, neither suffer them that are entering to go in...

That is why I see no difference between the first anointing and the second anointing. The first is sopppsed to be a conditional promise that be fulfilled by faithful obedience. The second is sopposed to be the conformation that the faithful obedience has taken place and now you cannot be left unsaved.

Evidently that is not the case and the second anointing is still dependant on faithful obedience, no different than the first.

Maybe the church doesn't see like that though. They still haven't exed Tom Phillips. Maybe they consider him untouchable because of that anointing or it would be an admission that the second anointing is not efficacious.

The second anointing isn't just a redo of the first. It has more to do with the relationship of the husband and the wife. Still, it is merely symbolic without the Holy Spirit of Promise, which is to have one's calling and election made sure (per D&C 88:3-4)

ChristisRisen wrote:

Like why would Christ make Judas an apostle? We gotta learn to think a bit.

I disagree with Shadow that being a member of the lds church is some measuring stick of personal righteousness. If its short sighted to assume all members are righteous than it is equally short sighted to assume all non members are unrighteous just based on that. I think that is neither here nor there.

Where did that come from?
I know some unrighteous members. I know a lot of righteous non members.

shadow wrote:

Jules wrote: Judas did not receive the SA, nor is there a record he actually received the SC before he died. Much different scenario and the point was clearly missed - we gotta learn to think a bit ;)

Maybe we need Obrien to get after you for reading minds. We don't know if judas received a SA or C&E. There's no record either way. But he was an apostle of Christ. He met with Christ often, I suspect. Christ chose him. That's a pretty big deal.
But if you're going to bash current leaders for Tom, then you'll have to go back to Joseph Smith too. Some of his apostle who received their C&A left the church as bitter dweebs too. It's not the church's fault. The church did not lead Tom astray, he did that all by himself. Blaming the church when someone (whatever his status or calling) chooses to leave the church is quite an ignorant thing to do. You think agency ceases to exist? I think you just wanted to bash the church, right?

I was not blaming the church, I was being facetious and making a point - which you clearly missed.

Also, it is in the scriptures RE: Judas. Just study them.

Didn't Tom Phillips think he was to meet the Savior after the Calling and Election Ordinance in the Temple and when it didn't happen is when he started to stray and fall away?

Then that Duster fellow gets the whole enchilada and is asked to write down his experience by the Savior and all the Pete Priesthoods and Melba Mormons got all befuddled.

That's how it went down.
If only Duster could mentor the Doubting Thomas: that would be the cure.

Jules wrote: I was not blaming the church, I was being facetious and making a point - which you clearly missed.

Also, it is in the scriptures RE: Judas. Just study them.

What point was that?

And we know Judas was a son of perdition, so I guess he did have his SA.

ChristisRisen wrote:

Like why would Christ make Judas an apostle? We gotta learn to think a bit.

I disagree with Shadow that being a member of the lds church is some measuring stick of personal righteousness. If its short sighted to assume all members are righteous than it is equally short sighted to assume all non members are unrighteous just based on that. I think that is neither here nor there.

But, I do think shadow had a point here. To me, the Second anointing ordinance performed by the GA's is just as symbolic as the rest of the ordinances and in order for it to mean something it would need to be ratified by the HSOP. That being said, I don't think what happened with Tom Phillips proves or disproves anything regarding the GA's. Maybe these things occurred to bring about the Lord's purposes? Who knows? Joseph was inspired and in tune with the Heavens and he let that Bennett fellow within the ranks who did all sorts of damage among the early saints. And Christ did pick Judas. Joseph's standing would not be effected because those he taught failed to rise up.

I agree with all of this. Again, I was not blaming the leaders (actually, it's the iniquities of the members that darken the eyes of the leaders...), but I was trying to make a point that would hopefully help a few people to look at other possibilities regarding these kinds of topics, outside of the limited and correlated box the church provides. Clearly I failed to make that point. #-o