John is such the fence sitter isn't he. He is just trying to "understaaaaaand." "You sound a little excited there Tom. Oh, I just want my listeners to understand what you are "feeeeeeeeellling" right now." When Tom brings up the guts of the BOA issue John jumps in with a scoff and weak oh well this is where the apologists would say that JS didn't "know" what he was doing when translating (still don't get that theory) It is a love hate deal for me with JD...I like it that he gives us access to this kind of content, it just bugs me sometimes how wishy washy he comes off...but I suppose he has to be that way to continue to get access and exposure.

Yeah John Dehlin's interviews can be so awkward sometimes. I know it is all on the fly and I would sound like a bumbling fool doing it so I don't mean it to criticize. It is just so funny though like when Anointed One finishes telling a story and then there is a long awkward pause and then finally John Dehlin says, "So that made you feel sad?"

John Delhin is not a journalist, he was not an English or lit major. To me, he seems like a brown noser and frankly, kind of bugs me. He seems to wants very desperately to be "in the know" on all things Mormon. Kind of like a typical TBM nerd.

John D., it seems to me, is doing his best to provide an analytic point of view on a very subjective issue. His twist is rather unusual, but not necessarily mormoncentric. He can't impose his POV onto his interviewing subjects, but it can not be ignored either. There were a few times in the interview that I thought Tom was emotionalising, rather than intellecutalising. It is beyond understandable, yet nonetheless basing. Two times Tom, himself, called how own behavior innapprorpriate for the circumstances. And, he was right. His family remembers just were not THERE yet. The retribution he suffered was beyond out-of-proportion, in my never to be humble opinion.

I see Mr. Dehlin etching a new gnitch between NOM's and EXMO's. A place with few, but a place where some will find thier peace. I, for one, hope he continues. More people in peace is better than less.

HH =)

you mean "ex-monoms"...that is a small subset indeed

I didn't used to know what "POV" meant, until...

I can see the benefit on offering up that kind of thing since some listeners may not be familiar with those particular issues. It gives a more full picture.

But yes, I agree that he seemed a bit unprepared for the type of information that was going to be shared, that he didn't know how to respond to it.

Soemone earlier called him a name dropper extraordinaire. Dehlin, that is.

That was the thing he was most excited about in the whole interview. To hear about Tom's interactions with General Authorities.

In noticed that too. He seemed very eager to know exactly which GAs Tom had met in his life.

Tom was honest about the good life he had had in the Mormon church and his pleasant interaction with General Authorities, but he held back no punches later in the interview when he discussed Holland's veiled insinuations that Tom was guilty of some sin or misdeed. At one point, Tom said that he's not the one who is lying and in apostasy, it's Holland. Then he suggested that maybe he and the other ex-Mormon member of the anointed quorum (the former temple president from Oklahoma) should get together and hold a church court against Holland, or something to that effect. (It sounded better when Tom said it.)

BTW, John stopped asking follow up questions toward the end. I don't know if he was getting restless and uncomfortable about the direction of the interview or if he was just tired.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2012 08:20PM by Makurosu.

Anyone have a link? I only get Greg Prince's interview. Where's Anointed's one?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/tempstash/TomPhillips-Unedited.mp3

I'm going through it for the second time. Fascinating.


Anagrammy

OMG Tom! You're British! Did you know? :)

O/t
British accent= yummy :)
I'm picturing Annointed one as a dashing, debonaire James Bond ala young Sean connery..... Lovely!!!

Brilliant interview Annointed one. Thank you

I heard it all the way through this afternoon. Dehlin's questions could be exasperating at times. Like when Tom talked about how he separated from his wife partly because of the pressure to keep his mouth shut about anything related to Mormonism. So, Dehlin asks him "So, why don't you just become a NOM?" Uhhhh.......

Tom's answer to that question was fantastic. He completely blew the NOM thing out of the water, and I loved it! The whole interview was fantastic. Tom seemed to become more and more energized and intelligent as the interview progressed. He was clear-minded, reasoned, and *extremely* well-spoken. He was able to elucidate very well the inferences made by Holland and why they're so infuriating. I also appreciated his description of family members who refuse to educate themselves on this religion and only want to stay in their comfort zone.

I wonder though why neither Dehlin nor Tom Phillips ever mentioned RfM by name since they both made frequent references to posts here in about the third hour. Is Dehlin not supposed to talk about RfM on his show in order to keep the Mormon church off his neck? Tom kept referring to RfM as "the message board." What was that about?

Wasn't there one point in the interview where Tom mentions the message board and then says oh sorry and then John Dehlin says oh that is okay? Maybe I am imagining it but it seems like I remember something like that. I plan to listen to it again so I will be listening for that part. It seemed like John Dehlin had said he doesn't want this board brought up.

It was like they were going out of their way to avoid talking about RfM.

Xactly! +1

HH. =)

Right around 3 hours and 7 minutes they mention RfM, but not by name.

I agree with so much of what Tom says. It really all comes down to the contradiction between Mormon church teachings and reality - the Book of Abraham, the 6,000 year old earth, no death before the Fall, and Native American descendants of Lehi. Reminds me of when I was in high school, trying to reconcile scientific facts with Mormon "truths".

I really liked it that he actually wrote a letter to the Smithsonian to ask them if it might possibly be true - even a 1% chance.

The full interview is absolutely worth listening to. I don't mind at all that it was never edited. I would love to see what my TBM family think of this - if I dare ask them.

Yes, and his wife saw the letter to the Smithsonian and absolutely freaked.

No doubt the Smithsonian is viewed as an "antiMormon" source.

Cult cult cult cult.


Anagrammy

In that same vein Tom made the great point that practically every scientist on earth is an anti-Mormon

Maybe he has become a bit disingenuous for the greater good. I don't know how I feel about that.

I haven't heard all of JD's podcasts, but the few that I've heard (in particular, the one with Michael Coe which put the BOM in a pretty bad light) have a much more confident JD than in the interview with Tom. Tom's clarity of expression and personal integrity intimidated JD and brought into question his NOM philosphy. What I heard was an interviewer that was overwhelmed by what Tom told him. He seemed to be riding a runaway horse, struggling to stay on.

What I find most annoying about Dehlin's interviews is how often he asks leading questions. Makes for boring episodes.

The other thing is that I always get the feeling that it's more about selling JD than about the interviewee. It kind of deflects from the stories sometimes and that's a shame.

Could someone tell me the background to this? Was this a MS episode, or going to be? How did people find this? I thought I was up to date with Dehlin's stuff.

Sorry, I'm on a health break at work and feel lost on my phone.

I thought the interview was superb. I thought Dehlin's questions were excellent and provided anointed one an opportunity to address the issues fully. For example, asking anointed one "why not be a nom and just pretend to believe" gave anointed one the opportunity to talk about truth and integrity.

Our political climate is incorrectly teaching us that the interviewer must support a position to conduct a good interview. A question that challenges someone's position is good.

Dehlin is an excellent interviewer in my opinion. I would agree there were times the power of anointed one's answers bowled Dehlin over. I'm wondering if this had anything to do with Dehlin's recent blubbering testimony.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2012 12:18PM by thingsithink.

His question was actually "why not be a NOM and pretend to believe TO ALLOW OTHERS THEIR BELIEFS?"

This suggests that the person of integrity who chooses not to portray beliefs other than those he sincerely holds is SELFISH!!!!

John Dehlin was advocating for his own choice, New Order Mormon, with a question which may, just may, have been more for himself than for his listeners.

The answer anointed one gave was classic. He said that he could never, never, never teach his children that something was true that was not true. How could they ever respect you once they learned the truth? How could you respect yourself? And if you never told the truth about your beliefs, then you've lived your whole life being someone else and no one really knows you.
That the whole reason he belonged to the church was because he believed it was the True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If it is NOT True, then what is the point? Brotherhood?

There is plenty of brotherhood to be had in the secular world without sacrificing most of your time and money.

Crickets. Absolute crickets in reply. The reply was so devastating (mine is a lame paraphrase) made from such high ground by a man with impeccable principles, there was simply nothing John Dehlin, compromiser extraordinaire, could say in return but a whimper.

Anagrammy

PS. Big Tom Phillips fan here. Tom! If you are ever in San Francisco, call me!!

...here's an email you can use if you like tomphillips@romneysfaith.com

Thanks again anagrammy for all your kind comments and support.

Tom

I think the trick for John Dehlin is the delicate balance between doing interviews that would be interesting for an exclusive audience--if he were ONLY appealing to ex-mos, he could approach the interviews more aggressively. If he were only appealing to liberal, but still believing members, the questions would need to be different. He's got to travel the middle road--things that are topical, worthwhile, and that will still be listened to by people who are, for one reason or another, still involved with the church. I think his approach is generally very good. He asks some good questions, and while some of them are leading, they also tend to cover ground that listeners may be unfamiliar with.

Honestly, I've learned a lot and come a long way because of his interviews, and I appreciate how he puts himself on the line publicly for the benefit of others. Naturally, there's got to be a bit of self-promotion--no one could do what he does for free, nor could they invest the time and energy it probably takes to put together the interview, edit it, etc.

I am interested in the idea that this one interview might be too "hot" for him to post on the website--I'd hate to think that he cares much for what the church thinks--that they might be holding something over him that would impact his editorial decisions regarding his podcasts' content.

I think John would have been remiss to not have asked the NOM question. It is exactly the kind of question that looms large in the minds of his audience, IMO. He has talked or communicated with hundreds if not thousands of people who have found themselves in the place of not believing any more, while the church remains that dominant factor in the lives of family members.

Knowing the high cost that Tom paid for his integrity, how could John not have asked the question? Loss of family has to be the number one fear of those who discover that the church is not all it's cracked up to be. Even before John asked it, the question was burning in my head. I didn't hear John's question as any kind of a suggestion that Tom should have made the decision to be a NOM. I saw it more as "why would you do what you did knowing you'd be burned at the stake (center)?"

I loved Tom's answer and I admire his integrity. At the same time, I was both charmed and floored by his sincere belief that he could just lay it all out for his family and they would come around.

I was really surprised that John could see Holland's letter to Tom as sweet or sincere or whatever it was he called it. Maybe that's what happens when you know someone personally and want to believe the best about them, but nothing in Holland's letter seemed designed to help Tom. Rather it was Holland's self-justification for his own lack of integrity, IMO.

And FWIW, Holland was my BoM teacher at BYU back in the 60s. I think his class was the first place I really encountered the idea of no death before the Fall. So he's been teaching that for a long time.

Anyway, Tom, if you're still reading, thanks for doing the interview. It was riveting. I hope some day your family will have as much respect for you as I do. Best wishes.

The interview was riviting, only because of the interviewee. John Dehlin came across a little limp and silly at times. Especially the question about whether or not Tom had pleaded with his wife to consider that he was a good man. I wanted to yell at John "After several years of negotiation, you think he might not have ever said such a thing to his wife!"

Tom, you came across and a fantastic individual who has been put through a travesty. I gained profound respect for you and wish only that your family could see the true meaning of integrety, sincerity, patience, devotion and genuine love that is you. And Mr. Holland came out shamefully tarnished though this event! Shame on him.

I think John is an excellent interviewer and really enjoyed this interview with Tom. John asks many interesting questions from a variety of angles and always gives the interviewee a chance to say whatever they want. John has done a lot for getting these interesting Mormon stories out into the Mormon public view.