Under some circumstances, people can, do and sometimes even perhaps should do things that will offend their family and others close to them, because they think there are over-riding reasons for so doing.

I am content for individuals to make up their own minds as to how to act on such matters, based on their own understanding of their situations and the implications of various courses of action.

Chap,

All I said was that I disagreed with the guy. I didn't call a fatwa down on his head. I sympathize with him. I don't agree. Are you going to continue to make this some big deal?

Heavens, no!

Thanks.

This may have something to do with Greg's piece on him. He is most likely trying to be a good boy now. But having this interview with Tom and keeping the interview going even when he knew there could be a problem, will give him a headache. His voice is on the interview.

He certainly knew what he was doing. Lets face, he is now famous for 15 minutes on exmormon boards. But the problem is also with John who gave him a platform to reveal the rites and covenants.

Both were wrong: John and Phillips.

You may be right. We shall see I suppose.

Kish, I gotta call you out on this one. As you admitted, you stopped attending church. That, along with whatever other things you do that don't correspond to Mormon orthodoxy, would be enough for many Mormons to say that you have violated and abandoned your covenants. People in glass houses...

Also, I think, from listening to the interview, that it's obvious he does respect the sacredness of the rite in some sense. He spoke about it respectfully and said it was a supremely spiritual experience. But secrecy is a completely separate matter. There is not a direct linear relationship between sacredness and secrecy. Moreover, sacredness or secrecy are not the only virtues to be considered. Transparency and openness are virtues, too. In this case, he valued openness more than others' wishes to retain secrecy. That doesn't mean he did not value the sacredness of the rite, just that he valued something else more than preserving secrecy. He may be wrong in his value judgments, but saying he no longer respects sacredness is overstating the case.

Not that my endorsement means much, and with apologies for the "me too" flavor of this post, I want to say I agree wholeheartedly with Chap in this exchange. I'm not nearly as dissatisfied with Tom's disclosures as Kish is. Tom doesn't believe it anymore, and neither do I. While I don't want to go around rubbing this stuff in my friends' and relatives' faces who are still Mormon, neither do I feel myself obligated by all the enormous "sacredness", or secretness as it really is, of the Mormon rituals.

Let's just get it out here. If a Mormon doesn't want to hear details of the Second Anointing, all they have to do is not listen to the podcast. Apparently that's not good enough, however. They don't want anyone else talking about it either. So Tom, no longer a member, wishes to discuss an aspect of Mormonism he experienced with others who are either also not Mormons, or else are still Mormons (like John Dehlin) but seem willing enough to be in on the conversation, and there's this 3rd party, ie: faithful Mormons, who don't want this conversation to happen.

Do these TBMs get to shut down the conversation merely because they are offended by it? I don't think so.

Now, if Tom ever wants an improved relationship with his family, or a reconciliation with his wife, he's going to have to find another approach. That's pretty clear. But that's his decision. He's a big boy, and can take care of himself.

Where are you sitting?
I value openness and honesty, over a cover up or playing dumb, any day.
Especially from people who turn or get turned away. What loyalty do you have to that particular group when you are no longer welcome?
at least its easier these days, no fear of being murdered by other loyal follower, I never had to sign my throat being slit or my bowels spilling out, but know how that would really mess with someones head.

Once you've had that sudden realization that it is all just a con, you can't leave it alone, because you want to stop the nonsense and you want others to see how misled they are.
The sooner people realize that nothing is sacred, the better in my view.

So someone gets their feet washed by someone else, pretending to be Jesus! its just another man.
Just like the man behind the veil in the temple, he is not God, its just another man who wants to be God.
In the washing and anointing you've already had the sins of this generation washed away, or was that baptism? and these extra ordinances are just the illusion that you are progressing.

Why I used to think watching a film on a big screen about the creation, dressing up like a french chef and doing funny hand shakes was important for when I become plant food, I do not know.

And?

I think this is a silly argument. It would be one thing if I were saying that I am personally outraged and offended by the wicked Tom Phillips. What I am saying is that he made a bad call. That bad call, in my view, is a product of his conversion to a new world view, which many people here share, in which the temple is nothing more or less than kind of a sham play-act that the Church uses to manipulate members into handing over their cash.

I understand this line of thought perfectly well. Tom Phillips' supporters are happy that he was polite as he revealed the contents of a Mormon sacred ritual, because all sharing this perspective think that ultimately the Church is a sham, and that the members are better off being informed of this as politely, but firmly, as possible, so that they will discontinue being victimized by a heartless corporation that is masquerading as a religion.

Regardless, however, of whatever Tom, or you, or I may think about the "cold, hard facts," the rites of the Mormon temple are a sacred community trust that, in the view of believers, bind the initiate to God, the community of the faithful of all generations, and their loved ones. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that most believing LDS people who have entered into those covenants are going to thank you for revealing the secrets because they just wanted to know. They will be upset that you stepped all over something that once drew you closer together as a family and community.

People who cease to believe seem to me to have difficulty with this last part. They are motivated by the same love of family that motivates their family to want to continue to enjoy Mormon blessings, but they often miscalculate in how they treat those family members who are obviously not in the same place they are. These believing family members treat the violation of temple covenants as a rejection of the sacred bond of the prospectively eternal family. They are not thinking about the LDS Church being a heartless corporation with a large cashflow.

Tom Phillips' wife was in heaven with her husband in a way that few spouses will ever experience. He comes along one day and spits all over that, and the poor woman's whole life is turned upside down. Many people would blame the LDS Church. I would blame Tom Phillips too for being so obtuse that he rushed into breaking his wife's heart. You say, "well, it was good for her to be pushed to confront the cold, hard facts." I am not convinced that it is all that simple and straightforward. That is why I can't join those of you who rejoice over what Tom Phillips has done, as decent and honorable a man as he strikes me.

On the other hand, I know that he was motivated by all the best intentions, and by what he believed to be the best of values. It is difficult for me to condemn him, especially as I am, like you say, a "covenant breaker" myself. I simply don't agree, and I don't rejoice for him in revealing the contents of sacred Mormon rituals. I find the whole thing tragic in its own way. I really feel for this guy's wife, just as I feel for him.

I think it's pretty simple too. From my point of view, you either respect the feelings of your loved ones and friends or you don't. Don't be surprised if they take it personally when you don't.

Yep. You don't know. Other people's sensibilities don't matter because you think it's all stupid.

Gotcha.

Kishkumen's decision: he prefers not to reveal rituals that believing LDS want to keep secret, even though he has apparently ceased to be a believing LDS in the sense that most LDS would probably interpret it. He is a grown-up guy who has no doubt thought about any adverse consequences that flow from that decision and decided he can live with them. I'm fine with that. I have no criticism to make of that decision. I doubt whether Tom Philips would want to criticize him either.

Tom Philips's decision: he has decided to reveal (without mockery or raillery of any kind) rituals that believing LDS want to keep secret, in consequence of the fact that he has ceased to be a believing LDS in the sense that most LDS would probably interpret it. He is a grown-up guy who has no doubt thought about any adverse consequences that flow from that decision and decided he can live with them. I'm fine with that. I have no criticism to make of that decision.

Kishkumen, on the other hand, has now posted multiple times saying that he thinks that Tom Philips has made a bad decision, and has used fairly derogatory language to describe what he has done (thus, "He comes along one day and spits all over that", plus references to Philips being "obtuse" and that he "stepped all over something").

Kishkumen tells us that he does not want to be judgmental about Philips. Well, he does seem to be suffering severe temptation to do just that. I hope he continues manfully to resist.

Hey, Kish... I'm not attacking you for your position.
If your only dabbling in doubt but have not taken the plunge that's your call.

I just think by allowing secret societies to practice their secret arts it gives people the excuse to hide behind the 'it's to sacred card.'
The only thing I remember committing not to do, is disclose the sign along with the associated token, other than at the veil. Nothing else...

If someone is trying to convince me that God is a man... I have to ask, what makes him a man? does he have a penis? what is it for?

The washing of the feet is nothing new or secret, you can read it in the OT, NT and D&C 88.

I'm asking where you are sitting? where are you at? in your journey?

Yes, I think Tom has made a bad decision in talking about his second anointing--an experience he shared with his estranged wife, whom he evidently still loves. At least, I didn't hear otherwise.

Do I find that somewhat obtuse? Given the information I have, yes. Is it any more obtuse than I have been in my life? Hardly. I am hugely obtuse about lots of things.

So, I understand that, like stemelbow, you want to watch me as I hoist myself on my own petard being the total hypocrite I am.

The thing is: I don't care, and it doesn't change my opinion.

I feel for Tom. Maybe you think that if I were sincere about that I would have only nice and supportive things to say about his decision. I don't agree. I can sympathize with him, feel for his plight, and disagree with some of his decisions all at the same time.

What a mind-bender.

Hey, PK-

I am not telling you what or whom to care about. Do as you will. I make my own decisions. I may express disagreement, though. I am also fairly confident that I know the ins and outs of the stuff you are talking about, and then some.

I don't know where I am "at" in my journey, because I think sitting around talking about my "beliefs" is not productive for me. I don't even particularly like the word "belief" as it is currently used. I think how we treat others is the most important thing. So, that is what I wrestle with, albeit poorly.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me as I read this thread that in a sociological sense the whole complex of practices associated with the temple* functions very effectively in making it extra painful and difficult for members to leave the CoJCoLDS, have done with it, and act as free individuals thereafter.

For that reason, I very much doubt that the Brethren will do anything to diminish temple-related demands and sanction unless they reach a point that they have enough capital so that tithe-paying members cease to be important in maintaining financial viability.

*Such as the hurdles you have to jump to get and keep a recommend, the penalties of exclusion from marriage ceremonies of children for those who do not maintain a recommend, and the difficulties and disruption of family relationships if you want to talk about the temple. however politely, after ceasing to believe.

I agree. It is very difficult because the person who ceases to believe still values family members every bit as much as those in the family who continue to believe. In fact, they will see it as their loving duty to disabuse those believing family of their mistaken beliefs. But the believers in the family will see this as an attack on the familial relationship, not just the Church.

So True, I am totally going through that right now
I love to talk about it cause I know they can't win, but it always ends up with you have lost the spirit, or my favorite... One day you'll see!
in fact my mum once said... I wish you could die then you'd see! followed promptly with... But then come back, then you'd live it. (I do live it - I just don't believe it!)

I finish by saying Mum you will always be my mum even when your gone, nothing that happens beyond the veil can ever change that.
(In other words, No matter how much the church claims that we need to be sealed to each other for family units to exist beyond this life, if life exists beyond this mortality.

My parents also ring or text me every time they go to the temple.
normally followed by I'll put your name on the prayer roll.

I think why are you ringing to telling me, you never ring me, except when you're on the way to the temple!...
I don't phone you to say; hey I am going to the pub (not that I go to the pub, but illustrating a point.)

I still live the lifestyle of a Mormon, Hell, I even read and pray for a sign. But know I won't get one and so I am never disappointed.
My wife still believes CERTAIN parts of it and I go just to get out of the house and toy with the TBMs.

Thanks, Gilligan.






ETA winky face to remove snarky edge.