Before you gave the interview, did Dehlin give you a list of topics or subjects that should be avoided? Does he have certain rules that he has to follow? Someone on a different thread mentioned how RfM was referred to but not named.
I'm just curious what his limits of censorship are...
I noticed that too. They don't want to spread the word about RfM so they don't mention it by name.
Which is hilariously stupid since it's the second thing that pops up when you google "exMormon."
Makes me all the more convinced that the bloodshot eyeball of the Big Brother is very near John Dehlin and he must be ever so careful. He tries to give a "rounded" approach which includes a long preamble of questions like, "what did you like about the church" and "What are some of your fondest memories" and what stories warm your heart, etc, etc,
WITHOUT asking, "what didn't you like about the church" and "what traumatic experiences still give you nightmares?"
When he mentioned anything negative, Dehlin would say,"And did that make you sad? deferring to the emotions rather than asking a pointed follow up question on the same subject.
That's exactly what Holland did that Phillips complained about. I heard him getting a little irritated at the end and I'm sure he was chafing at the Dehlin patronizing responses, so like a therapist who no matter what you say, they say, "...mmmm and how did that make you feel?"
IMO, his sincerity didn't seem that sincere. It seemed like he was trying to smooth over the answers.
To me, it felt like there was an underlying agenda. I wasn't comfortable with that. It seemed like it interfered with the interview a bit.
Anointed one has an amazing, and heart rending story to tell. I have listened to every word he has to say. I'm also listening for the emotion in his voice. I can't begin to tell him how much I respect him.
Tom is extremely well-spoken and reasoned. I had no idea from his posts. He talked about his good experiences in the Church, and John liked that. But Tom also talked about the way he was treated by Holland, who was making false insinuations about Tom's character, which was understandably infuriating to him. He was pretty honest about that, and I think that made John uncomfortable. I don't normally listen to John's show, so I don't know what he typically does. I heard this podcast won't be in his episode list. Is that true? I can't find it there. Why is that?
I mentioned in the other thread Anagrammy referred to that Tom blasted the idea of being a NOM. John had no follow up questions to that, and he sounded tired. There was just nothing to be said after that. Tom completely destroyed the notion of being a NOM very simply and rationally, and it must have been hard for John to hear that.
Of course! That makes all the sense. Here's this loving,obviously dedicated believer, a recipient of a blessing that we only know rumors about and he speaks his truth very carefully, respecting people's privacy, refusing to trash his wife or children for their despicable behavior...
Then he says he gave up everything for one word: integrity.
And there sits John Dehlin, the ultimate Big NOM trying to advocating as equally acceptable just keeping your disbelief a secret, faking it in order to "allow others their belief especially when there's so much to lose."
Next to a man of principle like Tom Phillips, John Dehlin looked, well, snively and cowardly.
Yes! When I first listened to mo stories, I was a newby apostate. Not so cynical yet... I connected with the easy, conversational style of dehlin It wasn't too .... Out there... Does that make sense?
I stopped listening as I learned to navigate my life a bit better.while I recognise the value of mo.sto, I see it as a bit of a stepping stone on the way out. Gently, softly controversial, but no giant waves, yet.
Dehlin was out of his league on this one, And he knew it. I could hear it in his voice.
The honesty, integrity and reason expressed in Toms words was moving. And undeniable. churchco = Busted
I was in tears.
He said it all. All of it. The lies, the loss, the cost, And the core of it.
And really, what was there left to say ?
Interesting situation. If dehlin releases this on his site, the exposure will be big.
And really, how can anyone still be on the fence after that?
Perhaps the god of INTEGRITY will shine down upon dehlin, And prompt him to post it, unedited.
Not that hard to figure out. Dehlin's little niche is trying to justify a way or reason to stay in Mormonism. So he's trying to study those who have left to find out how they might be able to stay with it. At least, that's what it seems like.
It's possible he's doing his interviews as part of research for his new degree. A mind control type of research project?????
I've only listened to the first two portions but it's very interesting. I'm at the part where 4-5 couples were all invited for the "special ceremony" and am dying to find out if in the end, they are all invited to practice polygamy or wife swapping with each other!!! LOL
I mean, that wouldn't be too odd, given the history of the church.
It's also very interesting that there is accommodation within the Temple, including a Honeymoon Suite! Why don't newly Temple married couples get to access this suite?????
He didn't say it was within the temple, just on the temple grounds...and I believe this was in Great Britain, so it may be slightly different there. I would assume that the purpose of the honeymoon suite is exactly that, for couples who have just gotten sealed in the temple. In the U.S., most couples don't travel as far, so they just go home after the sealing. I could be wrong, but that's how I understood it.
Temples in most places outside the US have a hostel that provides inexpensive accomodation to temple patrons. They probably do allow newly married couples to use that room as well but since it was a Saturday night and the temple is closed on Sunday they gave it to Tom and his wife.
I just wanted to tell you that I was very happy to hear you speak. Your story hits home in some many ways. You are such a good person and I admire your conviction. I sincerely wish there were more people like you around. Thank you for sharing your story.
I hope I run into you one day, you sound like a genuinely good person. You've earned our love and respect.
First let me thank you for all the kind comments. I am actually moved to tears to feel such love from strangers when my own 'eternal' family and special friends like Jeff holland treat me like some evil reprobate.
Anyway, to answer the question re John Dehlin.
He didn't impose any conditions on me other than wanting to talk respectfully about the temple and making sure he didn't break any of his temple covenants. Of course, ultimately he had control of what was to be published as he was to do the editing. I liked John but I did feel I was at risk. Someone could take many things I said out of context and give it a different meaning, shedding me in bad light. John didn't do that.
During the interview I felt he was being over sympathetic to TBMs and giving too much credit to Holland. Afterwards I thought that is maybe what a good interviewer should do, play devil's advocate. That's probably why I sounded angry at times. I am not taking this baloney any more. TBMs do not have my respect. They should face up to the truth and not bury their heads in the sand.
I must admit I was disappointed when he decided not to publish as several weeks had gone by with him saying it was being edited and he also had other projects to finish. We obviously disagree on NOM. I now honestly believe my own son is a NOM. He serves as a stake president while disbelieving many things. He is truly into the 'middle way' thinking it is best.
I disagree. I would not belong to the Ku Klux Klan no matter how many of their members appeared to be good, kind people. The KKK was guilty of racism and murder. The church is guilty of those same crimes plus many more.
Thank you for your honesty, also regarding the interview itself and the aftermath. I was curious about that and I can relate to your statement that you somehow felt at risk - I often feel like that around mormons; cautious to the extreme, somehow. I'm sorry JD was being dishonest to you for weeks about the editing of the interview. If you're having second thoughts you can just as easily be honest about that and insult the other person by telling a lie/spinning a tale. What a cowardly way to behave towards you!
By sharing your story, you have touched the hearts and minds of countless people. And even though Dehlin won't publish the interview, it's out there now! Unedited! That makes it even more powerful in my opinion.
Perhaps Susan I/S or Eric can post a link to the interview on your second annointing letter?
I'm guessing that any NOM who hears your story and the "KKK analogy" is going to be forced to look at themselves and how much they value integrity.
Perhaps a polarization will begin to occur. It reminds me of how some WWII era Germans. There were the true Nazis, citizens who passively let the movement continue, and then there were Germans who actively took a stand in action to resist the Nazi movement.
Hopefully, more people will move from the passive stance and leave.
You are a wonderful human being Tom!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2012 10:45AM by ragingphoenix.
anointed one Wrote: -------------------------------------------------------
> I disagree. I would not belong to the Ku Klux Klan > no matter how many of their members appeared to be > good, kind people. The KKK was guilty of racism > and murder. The church is guilty of those same > crimes plus many more.
That brings back a Memory:
1965, I'm a freshman in college and hanging out at the LDS institute building. I'm talking in the common area with one of the girls in the college ward. She suddenly stands up, loudly yells at me about what a jerk I am and then storms off. I sit there looking sheepish then look up to notice that everyone else in the area staring at me.
What did I do? Did I make a cheap pass at her? Did I say something pornographic? Did I grab where I shouldn't have?
My sin was to criticize the Ku Klux Klan. It turns out that she was from the South and my criticizing the Klan was too much for her to put up with.
I have school in just minutes, but I stayed up past midnight and finished the interview over coffee this morning, I found it RIVETING!! Thank you so much for doing this Tom, your story is so powerful, so credible, so tragic, inspiring, touching, all wrapped into one. May God (or the universe, or Karma, or whatever is out there) bless you to have some of your family eventually join you, or at least make amends. You sounded liked a conscientious individual who's personal integrity was the single most important thing in his life, to be honest, I don't know that I've ever heard of anyone else living that is quite so honorable.
Tom's position that integrity trumps NOM or any other reason to stay in a church that won't tell the truth is something that just won't go away. I think Dehlin was hoping to find a way to reconcile Tom's position with his own but he couldn't and that's what resulted in the "tone" of his interview. There really is no way to get around the problems in the history and principles of the LDS chruch and even such a pillar of the church as Elder Holland (BTW, I love how some refer to him as "Elder Dodo") can't come up with a way, hence the appeal to "feelings."
It was very moving. I share your frustration; it annoys me that you being passionate about what you've discovered -- some truths and realities -- is labelled 'anger'. Nonsense. And, to the extent you are angry or hurt by the reactions of your family and friends, you have a right to feel that way. I found Holland's letter quite condescending.
Thank you for mentioning my favourite team sport, hurling. It's beautiful. Although my home team Tipperary lost in the GAA senior semifinal a couple of weeks ago, I love hurling.
I found myself getting agitated when JD would interupt you during a powerful point in your answers. Your response to the NOM way to staylds was perfect. (imo NOM is kind of a copout for members who discover the truth.)
Yes, integrity does trump the lies that the Mormon church is built on. People are finding out about the shocking truth of the church they grew up in and served in for decades. Ugh!
Holland is a company man who is only concerned with keeping the scam going for as long as possible. The Internet has pulled back the curtain for a thorough examination and the brethern are clueless in how to respond. It's only going to get more intense and worse in the months and years ahead.
I especially liked how Tom used the word "cult" in the interview and then sort of apologized for that honesty.
I am in 1000% agreement with that definition of Mormonism. It is a deceptive destructive cult that is unfit for human beings. The time, money, and thinking that it steals from people for a phony man made "Salvation" is sick and better off avoided for a healthy person. my two cents.
Holland is in big trouble and part of his mind knows it as do many of the top con men of Mormon, Inc.
I've been listening in parts and am so glad I got the chance to hear it. Your "second anointing" story was one of the first I read when I found RFM. I'd never heard of it and it was one more reason for me to get away from Mormonism even faster. After a year or two of reading your story I posted a question to you on the forum and you responded...you have no idea how grateful I was for your response. You, a complete stranger, answered me when local leaders pushed our concerns aside.
You have touched and inspired soooooo many people, me included. Thank you.
Dehlin was in a very tenuous position. The Church's standards for discipline are a moving target and ill-defined (almost like judging synchronized swimming) and interviewing Tom about his experience with the Second Annointing ventured into extremely sensitive territory (it exposes the Church's ol' boy network and ridiculous process for short circuiting the judgment process). Tom also suggests Dehlin's main concern was keeping his temple covenants. Moreover, Dehlin apparently has a personal relationship with the Holland family. These things make Dehlin extremely ill-equipped to perform such an interview with any journalistic integrity. I was very impressed with Tom's cogent and thoughtful responses, supported by reason and evidence. I was unimpressed with Dehlin's attempt to minimize the pain Tom has experienced because of the Church and to spin Holland's response as something tender and compassionate, rather than the tripe it is.
A question on the second anointing. There's a point in the interview where Tom mention's that some of the early church leaders received their second anointing. I just so happen to be about 1/2 way through "No Man Knows My History" and find it fascinating. In Brodie's book discussing the temple ceremony there is one little footnote mentioning it:
"The 'second anointing,' reserved for leading church officials has never been described in print."
I was a member all my life growing up and am trying to remember if I had ever even heard of this. It's clear that it must have been around since nearly the beginning, but only whispered about. Brodie clearly knew of it's existence in 1945. Do we know exactly when it came about?
You won't know me, but i remember you very well from when I was in Birmingham (Harbourne - now live in Sydney). I left the TSCC several years ago after discovering much of the same information that you discussed. I was rivetted by your interview and identified with so many of the things you were saying. I was very impressed by your dignity and eloquence and your respect for others (even if they had hurt you), which is how I recalled you from the old days. I listened to your entire podcast in one sitting and I found it to be totally absorbing!
You are a dignified and brave man who has made a what I can only imagine was a hugely dificult desicion.