Tom Philips Tells Mormon Stories About The Second Annointing

[Dando]

Tom Phillips, former Stake President, recently did an interview with John Dehlin about his experiences in the church including his participation in the Second Annointing (having his calling and election made sure). Dehlin did not release the interview via Mormon Stories and would prefer that it not be made public. Phillips on his own released an unedited version of the interview.

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]

[DavidB]

Phillips is no longer a member right?

And why punish Delhin for someone else's actions?

[Libs]

I've been listening to that interview (off and on) all day, today. It's interesting and kind of heart wrenching, in places.

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.

[Dando]

And why punish Delhin for someone else's actions?

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.

Phillips is no longer a member right?

I don't know if he's officially resigned.

[Duncan]

I am no fan of Dehlin but I don't think he should be exed over this, maybe the other man though just based on what I have read on here

[cinepro]

For those who are interested, this is a really good article on the Second Anointing:

The Second Anointing in LDS Theology and Practice

Edited August 28, 2012 by cinepro

[DavidB]

That Delhin does not want to host the content himself, tells me he is not the outright wolf so many want him to be. However his interviews are always the most friendly toward the church.

[ERayR]

That Delhin does not want to host the content himself, tells me he is not the outright wolf so many want him to be. However his interviews are always the most friendly toward the church.

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 August 29, 2012 by ERayR

[Tacenda]

Why is this such an issue? Isn't it a fact that some members are getting second annointings? If the church is true there shouldn't be secrets. Why hide this, if it's no different then temple blessings or ordinances why hide it unless some think that's not our place to grant the Celestial kingdom.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Tacenda

[Saints Alive]

I think the issue is that the 1st presidency doesn't want to be overwhelmed with requests, create another question for new members, and a stumbling block old members. Milk before meat.

[rpn]

Some think that the reason that there are fewer Second Anointings is because Emma had received it prior to her leaving the church after Joseph's death, as had others who thereafter did wicked things. There was some feeling that they were doing them too early in one's life.

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 August 29, 2012 by rpn

[Saints Alive]

I thought that even the second anointing couldn't take away your agency? I think it is ironic that the only sin that could keep Phillips and other apostates from exaltation is exactly the one they committed.

[ERayR]

Why is this such an issue? Isn't it a fact that some members are getting second annointings? If the church is true there shouldn't be secrets. Why hide this, if it's no different then temple blessings or ordinances why hide it unless some think that's not our place to grant the Celestial kingdom.

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 August 29, 2012 by ERayR

[Duncan]

well, you don't want to get into a hierarchy of who is more faithful then who in the Church. Basically my Mom is holier then yours because she had the 2nd anointing and yours didn't yet both could be equally as faithful

[ERayR]

I thought that even the second anointing couldn't take away your agency? I think it is ironic that the only sin that could keep Phillips and other apostates from exaltation is exactly the one they committed.

It doesn't. You can still break any covenant you want to.

[Christian Mormon]

I thought that having the second annointing or as its called "calling and election mad sure" was that Christ appears and seals this gift?

[Dando]

^ Phillips discusses this and whether or not Christ showed up.

[smac97]

That Delhin does not want to host the content himself, tells me he is not the outright wolf so many want him to be.

Unless Dehlin is concerned that publishing an interview so overtly hostile to the interests of the LDS Church would have the effect of pulling off his ovine apparel, and thus revealing his lupine attributes.

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 August 29, 2012 by smac97

[Calm]

Dehlin didn't release the interview, but took the time to conduct the interview knowing what Phillips would say.

Is there any indication of reluctance of discussing the topic by Dehlin in the interview?

[selek1]

Phillips is no longer a member right?

And why punish Delhin for someone else's actions?

Becaise Dehlin is legitimately and willingly complicit in those acts and statement attacking the Church and encouraging others to apostatize. Edited August 29, 2012 by selek1

[Libs]

Is there any indication of reluctance of discussing the topic by Dehlin in the interview?

Yes, there was. He even mentioned the possibility of his own excommunication over this piece, which is why he did not release it through Mormon Stories podcasts.

[Libs]

Becaise Dehlin is legitimately and willingly complicit in those acts and statement attacking the Church and encouraging others to apostatize.

Selek, John has never encouraged anyone to apostatize, that I know about. That is not in his agenda or purpose. He asks questions and he listens.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Libs

[why me]

I've been listening to that interview (off and on) all day, today. It's interesting and kind of heart wrenching, in places.

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.

Nothing is assured. If one denies the Holy Ghost, commits apostasy, etc will get you disciplined. To believe that one can do what one wishes because one believes that all is assured would be a mistake.

[selek1]

I've been listening to that interview (off and on) all day, today. It's interesting and kind of heart wrenching, in places.

It is no less so to those of us who understand the harm Phillips and his co-conspirators are doing and the pits they are digging for their fellow man.

Tim kind of intimates, in one place, that they would not excommunicate him, because he has gone through the second anointing.

He would be wrong.

Apostacy is apostacy. An excommunication would merely formalize a break he himself has consummated.

How do you excommunicate someone whose calling and election has been made sure? Puts the church in a kind of a difficult position.

Does it really? Why?

There is nothing in the Second Anointing- nor any where else in the Gospel- that relieves Phillips of his responsibility and culpability for his own actions.

The Second Anointing does not obviate the Law of the Harvest, nor does it obviate Phillip's agency.

As stated above- an excommunication merely codifies a separation and spiritual death that Phillips alone has wrought.

But, then, Tim also said that he had nightmares of being a son of perdition (although, he doesn't believe that he is)....

Of course he doesn't. No one sees themselves as an anti-Christ. Judas did not. Nor did Korihor.

Ultimately, however, it is up to the Lord- not any of us here- to decide Phillip's ultimate reward.

It falls to us merely to weep for what might have been and to protect others from his errors.

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.

I disagree. Flatly. Completely. Utterly.

If the church is true there shouldn't be secrets.

This foolish canard is both nonsensical and contra-Biblical on its face.

No reasoning adult can or should subscribe to such simplistic nonsense.

The Scriptures are replete with examples of both the Savior and Heavenly Father revealing things to those who were worthy- with the caveat and the order that they were to keep those things sealed up in their hearts.

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.

Indeed. The scriptural warnings about selling one's birthright for a mess of pottage spring readily to mind. Edited August 29, 2012 by selek1

[why me]

That Delhin does not want to host the content himself, tells me he is not the outright wolf so many want him to be. However his interviews are always the most friendly toward the church.

Or he is very smart by distancing himself from something he started. He should have known what would be said and when the interviewee was heading into controversial subject matter he could have shut the interview down. But it continued.