Tom Philips Tells Mormon Stories About The Second Annointing

[Libs]

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.

I agree. I think he was just briefly speculating on the church's position....which was probably inaccurate. I wonder if they will take action against him, now that he has released this interview?

[why me]

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.

Also, mocking the principle itself. Anyone who claims to have received one and then goes on to commit apostasy with a nah, nah, nah attitude may be pushing it too far.

[Libs]

I disagree. Flatly. Completely. Utterly.

Of course.

[Libs]

Btw, as a general note, Tom claims that he made no covenant in the Temple to keep any of what happened private. He said, he was asked outside of the Temple, to keep it a "secret", but did not make any promises or covenants inside the Temple, to not reveal this ordinance.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Libs

[why me]

I agree. I think he was just briefly speculating on the church's position....which was probably inaccurate. I wonder if they will take action against him, now that he has released this interview?

They could against Phillips. But they will leave John alone for now. But John must know that he needs to be careful but in this case he was not careful enough because he continued with the interview and it can be heard. It doesn't matter who releases it, I think that his voice is still on it.

[why me]

Btw, as a general note, Tom claims that he made no covenant in the Temple to keep any of what happened private. He said, he was asked outside of the Temple, to keep it a "secret", but did not make any promises or covenants inside the Temple, to not reveal this ordinance.

Maybe according to him. But he still knows what he is doing is wrong because it should be kept out of the public eye.

[Cobalt-70]

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

If you worry about whether or not you are a son of perdition, I think that you aren't one. As I understand it, nobody becomes a son of perdition unless they know full well what they are doing.

[Libs]

If you worry about whether or not you are a son of perdition, I think that you aren't one. As I understand it, nobody becomes a son of perdition unless they know full well what they are doing.

Yes. You would have to have sure knowledge and then reject it. This poor man had so many questions..there is no way he had "sure knowledge". It also makes me wonder about the revelatory powers or at the very least, the discernment of whichever priesthood holder decided Tom was even ready for this experience.

[Libs]

They could against Phillips. But they will leave John alone for now. But John must know that he needs to be careful but in this case he was not careful enough because he continued with the interview and it can be heard. It doesn't matter who releases it, I think that his voice is still on it.

How do you know they will leave John alone? He doesn't seem that sure about it, himself.

[Cobalt-70]

Yes. You would have to have sure knowledge and then reject it. This poor man had so many questions..there is no way he had "sure knowledge". It also makes me wonder about the revelatory powers or at the very least, the discernment of whichever priesthood holder decided Tom was even ready for this experience.

There's no requirement that people who have the second anointing have some grand appearance of Jesus or anything. They typically have just been older, established members, who have proven themselves and whose faithfulness is not in question. What you get out of the deal is guaranteed exaltation. As I understand it Phillips is still destined for the Celestial Kingdom, regardless of his loss of faith. But if he were living during the Brigham Young era, his actions might have required that he be "destroyed in the flesh" (i.e., blood atonement)--although I don't think there is any record of any such penalty being carried out.

[Storm Rider]

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

There is an actual temple ordinance that is at times called the second annointing. This ordinance should not be confused with another event that is know as having one's "calling and election made sure", where it is believed that Jesus Christ himself seals you up to himself. The temple ordinance is not performed often and the vast majority of LDS will not have this done. It is an ordinance and should be understood in the same context of all other temple ordinances.

[Paddy]

I downloaded it and suffered through the 4 and a bit hours of it...Actually found the first part interesting. After that it was just a whinging pom in my opinion. Don't think the church could be bothered doing anything about either participant in the podcast. I honestly think it did more harm to their own individual credibility than any harm to the church...

Paddy

[why me]

How do you know they will leave John alone? He doesn't seem that sure about it, himself.

Here is what I think happened. The interview got out of his hands. But he continued with it. He could not stop it without it harming his reputation. Imagine if Phillips went public that John censored his interview. So, it continued to the end. John did not put it on his mormonstories but it was still put somewhere. Who owned the ownership of the interview?

But since he disavowed it, he may be safe.

[Tacenda]

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.

He would be wrong.

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

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.

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.

I disagree. Flatly. Completely. Utterly.

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.

Indeed. The scriptural warnings about selling one's birthright for a mess of pottage spring readily to mind.

I know there is a scripture regarding "no secrets" in the bible. I don't have it right now but feel free to CFR and I'll find it later.

[Storm Rider]

I know there is a scripture regarding "no secrets" in the bible. I don't have it right now but feel free to CFR and I'll find it later.

Context is everything.

Why do you think Jesus pulled the Apostles aside from his other followers and taught them? Was it secret? Was it sacred? Why do it? Since Jesus did teach the Apostles alone and separate from his followers, should the Apostles have felt comfortable to immediately disseminate what he taught them alone to everyone else? Should God teach people differently or should he assume that we all need to know everything and that no one is better, more entitled, or stronger than anyone else i.e. there should be no such thing as milk before meat?

John 18:20 states that Jesus did not teach anything in secret, but the Bible also states that he took the apostles aside and taught them alone. What is the context of teaching things in secret or do you think he was stating an absolute? On the mount of transfiguration he did not take all the apostles; was this done in secret? Why did he not allow all the apostles to attend?

Jesus most assuredly taught the Apostles things that he did not teach everyone else. Are these secret teachings, private teachings, sacred teachings or all of the above?

[Cobalt-70]

Why do you think Jesus pulled the Apostles aside from his other followers and taught them? Was it secret? Was it sacred? Why do it? Since Jesus did teach the Apostles alone and separate from his followers, should the Apostles have felt comfortable to immediately disseminate what he taught them alone to everyone else? Should God teach people differently or should he assume that we all need to know everything and that no one is better, more entitled, or stronger than anyone else i.e. there should be no such thing as milk before meat?

I would tend to think that if Judas could have been consistently relied upon to publish Jesus' secret teachings on Wikileaks, then maybe Jesus would have altered his teaching strategy. In the church today, there is no such thing as milk before meat. It's all meat, all the time. It's a meat buffet. So we are being counterproductive if we don't just get all the information out there, on our own terms, where we can spin it ourselves.

[Storm Rider]

I would tend to think that if Judas could have been consistently relied upon to publish Jesus' secret teachings on Wikileaks, then maybe Jesus would have altered his teaching strategy. In the church today, there is no such thing as milk before meat. It's all meat, all the time. It's a meat buffet. So we are being counterproductive if we don't just get all the information out there, on our own terms, where we can spin it ourselves.

As soon as we are in charge of things we will do that. Until then we just live with what is. As an aside, I really do think that some things can still be treated in a sacred manner and still be discussed.

However, given the state of the internet the allegation that the Church has any secrets is patently false. If we advertised everything that we hold sacred it would still would not prevent or stop the spinning by anti-Mormons.

[Cobalt-70]

John 18:20 states that Jesus did not teach anything in secret, but the Bible also states that he took the apostles aside and taught them alone. What is the context of teaching things in secret or do you think he was stating an absolute? On the mount of transfiguration he did not take all the apostles; was this done in secret? Why did he not allow all the apostles to attend?

The writer of the Epistle of John likely wrote John 18:20 as a poke in the eye to Gnosticism, which was based upon the supposedly secret teachings of Jesus that were only given to the initiated. I have heard many Mormons claim that the Apostles practiced the modern Mormon Endowment ceremony as it was taught to them by Jesus. I think that's false as a matter of history, but not because of John 18:20, which I think is probably not correct, either. Regardless of what the author of John believed, the synoptic gospels have several examples of Jesus' apparently secret teachings. This is just one of those examples where John disagrees with Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

[ERayR]

Btw, as a general note, Tom claims that he made no covenant in the Temple to keep any of what happened private. He said, he was asked outside of the Temple, to keep it a "secret", but did not make any promises or covenants inside the Temple, to not reveal this ordinance.

All are cautioned that temple ordinances are sacred and should not be discussed beyond the walls of the temple. He knows that.

[ERayR]

I know there is a scripture regarding "no secrets" in the bible. I don't have it right now but feel free to CFR and I'll find it later.

Taceda After having discussed this more than once you know the difference between sacred and secret. Temple ordinances are sacred they are not secret. Secrecy denotes that nobody is to know. Temple ordinances are open to anybody who chooses to qualify themselves.

But shucks who am I to get in the way of your great sounding talking point.

[Saints Alive]

Temple ordinances are open to anybody who chooses to qualify themselves.

Except for young single adults not going on missions, members with non-member spouses (who refuse to consent) and apparently anyone who wants the second anointing

Edited August 29, 2012 by Saints Alive

[cinepro]

Taceda After having discussed this more than once you know the difference between sacred and secret. Temple ordinances are sacred they are not secret. Secrecy denotes that nobody is to know. Temple ordinances are open to anybody who chooses to qualify themselves.

All ordinances are "sacred", including the sacrament and baptism.

Not all ordinances are secret.

[ERayR]

All ordinances are "sacred", including the sacrament and baptism.

Not all ordinances are secret.

To repeat Temple ordinances are not secret. Any who wish to qualify can know them. But of course you knew that so why are you being disingenuous?.

[ERayR]

Except for young single adults not going on missions, members with non-member spouses (who refuse to consent) and apparently anyone who wants the second anointing

What part of qualify do you not understand?

[Saints Alive]

What part of qualify do you not understand?

I understand the word qualify just fine, my point is that not every one can "choose" to qualify themselves.