265 replies to this topic

[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]

Quote

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.

Quote

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 by cinepro, 28 August 2012 - 04:43 PM.

[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]

DavidB, on 28 August 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

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 by ERayR, 28 August 2012 - 05:13 PM.

[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 by Tacenda, 28 August 2012 - 05:23 PM.

[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 by rpn, 28 August 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[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]

Tacenda, on 28 August 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

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 by ERayR, 28 August 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[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]

Saints Alive, on 28 August 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

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]

DavidB, on 28 August 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

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 by smac97, 28 August 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[calmoriah]

Quote

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]

DavidB, on 28 August 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

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 by selek1, 29 August 2012 - 12:06 AM.