Tom Philips Tells Mormon Stories About The Second Annointing
#1
Posted 28 August 2012 - 03:53 PM
It's clear that Phillips was asked not to talk about the Second Annointing and was told it was "secret" but made no specific oaths of secrecy in the ceremony (secret not sacred). Philips accounts of the ceremony have been available online for at least 4 years and pruportedly match 19th Century accounts that were made public.
Phillips has very clearly lost faith in the church and also discussed correspondence with Elder Holland which he told Elder Holland he would make available on message boards. The release of the interview and Phillips other writings (under the name AnointedOne) clearly indicate that he's not keeping his views to himself but wishes to influence others to join his point of view against the church.
My question for discussion is, should the church be pursuing disciplinary action against Phillips and Dehlin? Dehlin didn't release the interview, but took the time to conduct the interview knowing what Phillips would say.
[mods: I made a good-faith effort to adhere to board guidelines about temple content. Let me know specifically if I stepped over any lines]
#2
Posted 28 August 2012 - 03:58 PM
And why punish Delhin for someone else's actions?
#3
Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:02 PM
Tim kind of intimates, in one place, that they would not excommunicate him, because he has gone through the second anointing. How do you excommunicate someone whose calling and election has been made sure? Puts the church in a kind of a difficult position.
But, then, Tim also said that he had nightmares of being a son of perdition (although, he doesn't believe that he is)....
Should John Dehlin be excommunicated? Absolutely not, IMHO. But, that call is not for me or anyone here. I just hope that does not ever happen.
#4
Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:24 PM
Quote
I imagine that some might say that it was Delhin's action to interview him knowing that he'd reveal temple content and speak against the church. It was also Delhin's action to give Phillips an mp3 of the interview knowing it could be made public.
Quote
I don't know if he's officially resigned.
#5
Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:37 PM
President George Q. Cannon
(Oct. 6, 1896, DW 53:610)
#6
Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:41 PM
The Second Anointing in LDS Theology and Practice
Edited by cinepro, 28 August 2012 - 04:43 PM.
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
The Flood and the Tower of Babel, by Donald W. Parry, assistant professor of Hebrew at BYU, Ensign, Jan 1998, 35
#7
Posted 28 August 2012 - 05:04 PM
#8
Posted 28 August 2012 - 05:13 PM
DavidB, on 28 August 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:
I have a better explanation. Perhaps Dehlin realizes he has gone too far this time.
Compared to raving critics and anti-Mormons one might by stretching real hard call his interviews friendly. Naa
Edited by ERayR, 28 August 2012 - 05:13 PM.
#9
Posted 28 August 2012 - 05:21 PM
Edited by Tacenda, 28 August 2012 - 05:23 PM.
#10
Posted 28 August 2012 - 05:35 PM
"A fool with a tool is still a fool" - Unknown
http://mormonthoughandopinion.blogspot.com/
#11
Posted 28 August 2012 - 05:45 PM
So how does one reconcile the two. I think that we just don't know enough about it to reconcile it one way or another. Or humans just get it wrong in choosing who.
Edited by rpn, 28 August 2012 - 05:53 PM.
#12
Posted 28 August 2012 - 05:50 PM
"A fool with a tool is still a fool" - Unknown
http://mormonthoughandopinion.blogspot.com/
#13
Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:00 PM
Tacenda, on 28 August 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:
You, with the rest here, are using the wrong rhetoric. You know that the temple ordinances are sacred and not to be profaned by this kind of antics. Sacred not secret. Whether you recognize it or not there is a difference Whether they are available to the profane is not the question. Covenants were made and not kept. I feel sorry for those who profane the sacred ordinances and for those who haven't a clue that they have been been profaned and even sorrier for those who have knowingly.broken their covenants.
Edited by ERayR, 28 August 2012 - 06:02 PM.
#14
Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:22 PM
President George Q. Cannon
(Oct. 6, 1896, DW 53:610)
#15
Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:30 PM
Saints Alive, on 28 August 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:
It doesn't. You can still break any covenant you want to.
#16
Posted 28 August 2012 - 08:22 PM
#17
Posted 28 August 2012 - 08:44 PM
#18
Posted 28 August 2012 - 09:28 PM
DavidB, on 28 August 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:
After all, the whole point of being a wolf in sheep's clothing is to avoid being "outright" about it.
Just a thought.
-Smac
Edited by smac97, 28 August 2012 - 09:28 PM.
#19
Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:03 AM
Quote
Is there any indication of reluctance of discussing the topic by Dehlin in the interview?
#20
Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:05 AM
DavidB, on 28 August 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:
And why punish Delhin for someone else's actions?
Edited by selek1, 29 August 2012 - 12:06 AM.
Also tagged with John Dehlin, Mormon Stories, Second Annointing, apostasy, excommunication
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users




