Talk:Second anointing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old[edit]

"more sure word of prophecy" or having your "calling and election made sure" as well as a reference to Peter and JS to support the different phrases that refer to the Second Anointing. --Dvhatwiki 19:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Temple ordinance?[edit]

How can an ordinance in a temple as stated in the first paragraph possibly deliver on all that is mentioned scripturally and otherwise in the remainder of the article? Is this article implying that the President of the Church sends a letter to elderly Mr. and Mrs. Mfala Ndongo of Kenya and invites them to Salt Lake to receive the Second Anointing from him? Do we have references for this assertion? We certainly can't make this stuff up. Is it possible that this article should have a duality of presentation similar to the Kolob article, in which the Second Anointing alternately meanse a temple ordinance or a direct personal inward spiritual blessing. Tom Haws 20:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I have tried to improve access to sources. In doing so, I ran across the 1993 Deseret publication of Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (ISBN 0875796478). Since it is listed as 100 p. longer than the other editions, and lists Richard C. Galbraith as coauthor, I am uncertain as to whether it is the same book as Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Can anyone clarify this?--Blainster 17:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is the same text, but with cross-referencing to the scriptures. Pagination would likely be different. -Visorstuff 19:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=10&num=1&id=278, it appears that the Buerger book and article cannot be trusted. I would suggest removing those portions of the article that references his "research". 19:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.198.241.67 (talk)

Does the anonymous blog post really count as any kind of a source?--crawdad 6— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawdad6 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 November 2010

McConkie Citation[edit]

Article cites Mormon Doctrine, pg. 109-110, for reference to Second Anointing. In actuality, this falls under the heading of “Calling and Election Sure.” While it could be assumed that E. McConkie was covering the topic of “Second Anointing,” he in now way refers to it directly [or even indirectly for there is no heading in Mormon Doctrine for “Second Anointing,” to include a redirect to “Calling and Election” or any other topic). It is misleading to state: According to prominent 20th century Latter-day Saint Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, those who receive the Second Anointing "receive the more sure word of prophecy, which means that the Lord seals their exaltation upon them while they are yet in this life. . . . [T]heir exaltation is assured.” In the preface to the quote, it should state “Calling and Election made sure” instead of “Second Anointing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojerts (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 July 2006

IMHO the reference should not be there at all without another source to connect the two. Objections?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.97.64 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 August 2006
I agree that "calling and election made sure" is not necessarily the second anointing in 20th Century Mormon theology. I don't know if this doctrine existed before McConkie, but today, if someone says "calling and election made sure" in an LDS Sunday School, you know they definitely aren't talking about the Second Anointing, but rather about a special type of theophany. So the quote might have a place here, but there should at least be some explaination. COGDEN 06:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand and correct using these sources[edit]

forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?t=6223

www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/view.php?bn=exmobb_recovery&key=1200929251&newest=1200937409

www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon508.htm

  • A man who says he received the second anointing "at the Preston England Temple on Sunday 19th May 2002" from "Elder M. Russell Ballard, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" said that:
    • Elder Harold G. Hillam of the First Quorum of Seventy told him "the ordinance was performed in Joseph Smith’s time but had been discontinued during President David O. McKay’s time. This resulted in only 2 of the then apostles, Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimball, having had this ordinance on the death of President Joseph Fielding Smith. It was therefore re-introduced and is still practised today. (I have seen no source that quotes this suspension of the ordinance, only Elder Hillam’s word)."
    • Hillam "recommended I read all that Elder Bruce R. McConkie had written on the subject of “making your calling and election sure”."
    • After the ordinance, Hillam "asked me to nominate 2 couples I knew to receive this ordinance."
  • A person who says he/she worked at the BYU archives as a collections processor said yesterday forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?p=76868#76868
    • the library "received the papers of a man who had been one of the original Regional Representatives. If I recall correctly, this was in the 60s--possibly very early 70s. Concurrent with his call, he received a letter from one of the twelve (I don't recall which one) which invited him to come to the temple with his wife on such and such a date and receive his second endowment wherein his calling and election would be made sure. It was very similar to what this guy described and they very specifically told him to tell no one in his family what they would be doing, and suggested that they just tell their family that they would be going to a "meeting at the temple." I saw the original letter, with the GA signature. It was the first time I'd ever heard of the second anointings. If I have the dates right, it puts the date back earlier than the Harold B. Lee years--and at a lower level than apostle."
    • When his/her "dad was in the high council about 10 years ago, they had a fireside for just the stake presidency, the high councillors and their wives...." "The SP then told the group that people were quietly getting this done on an ongoing basis and that several people in our stake had done so."

Agape bright (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These do not meet wp:RS and so do not make sense to incorporate into the article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree these forum postings are not reliable sources. If a journalist or scholar were to interview these people and publish an article, then it would be a different story. COGDEN 23:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Phillips interview[edit]

There is new primary source information available about this topic. Agape bright (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely: seems that the 4+ hours of John Dehlin interview should be enough to add some really interesting stuff to this article. You want to, or shall I? I've listened to it, but I'd have to skim back through to get quotations. --Chronotopian (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Phillips info[edit]

How does exmormon.org meet wp:RS for use in this article? How are unsupported POV statements characterizing Tom Phillips &/or mormonthink.com pertinent to this article? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Phillips self published account on mormonthink.com is still not a wp:reliable source. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does meet the criteria as a reliable source AND the information in the article is valid. PRONIZ (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And how is that exactly? It's not wp:SCHOLARSHIP nor wp:NEWSORG. The source is wp:SELFPUBLISH and the author is not an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The source is not valid under wp:SELFSOURCE (the reference appears on the Second anointing page, not a wp:BLP about Tom Phillips and Tom Phillips as a subject would also not meet wp:Notability (people), or even wp:BLP1E; the source involves claims about specifically named third parties and there is a reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; materiel at that source reasonably demonstrate that it is a "biased or opinionated source", but not that it has editorial controls nor a reputation for fact-checking). The claim this is trying to support is not otherwise wp:Verifiable, as there are no other published accounts in reliable, third party sources of this incident, or even other directly related modern reports in RS which are substantially the same. wp:COPYWITHIN might possibly also apply, as on http://www.mormonthink.com/glossary/secondendowment.htm the site reproduces the text of the Second anointing Wikipedia page from March 9, 2011. The site may also be committing a copyvio in relation to WP, as there is no CC-BY-SA 3.0 notice at that page, and instead the page claims full copyright at the end of that page, using an incorrect date (maybe some time travel was involved to have WP text from 2011 copyrighted by MormonThink.com in 2008). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer this - what would it take to add this information? It is clearly relevant to the discussion. It is a modern explanation of the ceremony. It is information that needs to be in the article. Please help IMPROVE the article. I want to work with you. It would be much easier if you would get a username. PRONIZ (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there is nothing you can do. No wp:SCHOLARSHIP or wp:NEWSORG sources are willing to publish this material so it can't be included. Secondly using your IP is actually more disclosing of who you are then using the anonymity of a username. --Trödel 13:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This request wasn't about "anonymity" at all. This was about having the ability to discuss a subject or send a PM and having a little more confidence that it would be seen by the party represented by the IP rather than just posting it here and possibly never getting a response. PRONIZ (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The recent attempts may not be allowable, but that doesn't mean that it will always be impossible for material describing Second anointing practices in the modern post-David O. McKay era to be added to the article; it just means that a significant amount of off-wiki work must happen first. Because of wp:EXCEPTIONAL, the most ironclad way for this to happen would be for the Phillips experience to be both described in detail (not just in passing) and also critically analyzed by two or more academics who are notable in Mormon studies; academics like Jan Shipps (who has never been a member of any Latter Day Saint movement denomination but who is very well respected in the Mormon studies field) would be ideal authors of such papers, but really anyone listed in Category:Historians of the Latter Day Saint movement would be just fine, as would other scholars notable in this field who don't yet have WP articles. These academic papers would also ideally be published in separate journals for Mormon studies, such as Sunstone Magazine, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Journal of Mormon History and/or the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal; journals involved with apologetics such as BYU Studies and Mormon Studies Review would likely not initially publish on this topic, and would only come late in discussing it. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. PRONIZ (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I find Tom Phillips statements personally interesting, I think his credibility just took a nose dive. He is suing the LDS Church for fraud based on there belief in Adam and Eve. His actions make him even less credible and he seems to have a personal agenda. See 1, 2, and 3. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Philips[edit]

It's not clear and I think it should be that Tom Philips claims to have actually witnessed, his own, second anointing. Currently it reads as if he just believes in it--it's a big difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.2.211 (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed, his accounts and claims are NOT RELIABLE. Tom Philips claims do not have wp:SCHOLARSHIP or wp:NEWSORG sources backing his claim. All his information are from self published sources. His claims to not not meet wp:Notability (people), or even wp:BLP1E. Tom Philips credibility is sorely lacking and he has a clear WP:POV. See 1, 2, and 3.
This has already been discussed over and over again, and rejected over and over again. Nothing has changed and I still see no reason to include any information on Tom Philips.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 15:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem with Wikipedia. Tom Philips makes a claim, it's covered and discussed on numerous websites. Users suggest including it, AS A CLAIM. The fact that he's filed a law suit against the church being discussed cannot in any way discredit him. It's a lawsuit, not slander. Perhaps this article should be marked an neutrality disputed since it appears a single editor has taken control of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.2.211 (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may call it whatever you want, Tom Philips claims do not have wp:SCHOLARSHIP or wp:NEWSORG sources, as they are all self published. I can say I witnessed Elvis Presley eating a doughnut last weekend, that doesn't make my claims RELIABLE. As for "it appears a single editor has taken control of it.", I have only ever edit this page to correct misspelling in names and reverting IP vandalism. I have never edit it for "Substance". The decision to excluded Tom Philips claims came from the above discussion TWICE, by multiple editors.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 21:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Dehlin and Tom Philips[edit]

I have removed the current sentences referring to John Dehlin and Tom Philips for the following reasons.

From a wp:Identifying reliable sources point of view:

  1. As John Dehlin's blog and podcast are Self-published sources. Per Self-published sources Podcastes are not reliable sources. Self-published sources reads, "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. Therefore it cannot be used as a citation.
  2. Tom Philips isn't a reliable sources as his claims are Self-published to begin with, therefore the interview isn't reliable.
  3. Tom Philips claims are Exceptional claims and therefore require "multiple high-quality sources".

From a confusing sentence point of view:

  1. The sentence are completely misleading. John Dehlin dose not back the statement as it is written. Dehlin interview Tom Philips, giving him a chance to make his claims. It is no different then if CNN interviewed the KKK. CNN doesn't agree with the KKK's stance, nor dose it agree with the KKK's claimed, it only reported those claims. All mentioning John Dehlin is doing is allowing Tom Philip's Self-published climes to be used twice to back up his own claim.

From a general What is not allowed on Wikipedia point of view:

  1. Reporting of rumors is not allowed on Wikipedia. Per WP:NEWSORG. It reads "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."
  2. Links to Tom Philips claims, even on John Dehlin blog, cannot even be linked anyway. Per Links normally to be avoided - # 11 read that we should avoid "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
  3. WP:NOTADVOCATE clearly states that Wikipedia is not a place to advocacy or for opinion pieces. Tom Philips claims are his personal views on the LDS Church and he is trying to push is own agenda (i.e. advocacy for his own group). His opinion piece has no place on Wikipedia.
  4. Tom Philips claims are "supported purely by primary or self-published sources" and he has an "apparent conflict of interest", therefore they are not allowed on Wikipedia. Therefore per Exceptional claims, his claims have no place on Wikipedia.

I see absolutely no reliable sources backing Tom Philips claims, not even John Dehlin. Additionally Tom Philips blog is rumor and opinion pieces and rumors and opinion pieces have place on Wikipedia.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misapplying our policies, ARTEST4ECHO. Tom Haws (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Mormon Stories interview at the Mormon Stories web site is not self-published. Tom Phillips is not affiliated with Mormon Stories; he is simply one of many guests on the show. It looks like initially Mormon Stories declined to publish the interview, and Tom Phillips did indeed self-publish it. However, that is no longer the case. Tom Haws (talk)
  2. I am not sure how you are calling the claims of Tom Phillips exceptional claims. He isn't claiming anything particularly unbelievable or exceptional, especially in the context of this article. He is simply a guest on a podcast offering corroboration for a practice already abundantly referenced in this article. Tom Haws (talk)
However we end up referring to the Tom Phillips information in this article, the fact is that the information and the Tom Phillips story are noteworthy and were widely reported. The article is incomplete without some sort of reference to the affair. Tom Haws (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The policies I have listed apply as shown.
  1. I never said Tom Phillips was affiliated with Mormon Stories. I said the Mormon Stories web site is self-published by John Dehlin making anything posted there Not reliable per Self-published. However, John Dehlin's blogs are also self-published and Not reliable.
  2. The claims of Tom Phillips meet numbers 1, 2, and 4 of the 4 "Red Flags" for exceptional claims (no you don't have to meet all four) I don’t see how you can claim they aren’t.
User:208.81.184.4, User talk:Trödel, and User:COGDEN, have all said similar things as I have in the 4 above discussions, and all have rejected his clams as Not reliable for one or all the reasons I have given. I have only summarized all the reasons his claims are not reliable into one discussion. Tom Philips claims have no place on this page.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 15:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue here is WP:Verifiability. And per the discussion on that page at WP:QS, the key of whether a source is questionable or not is whether there is editorial oversight and if there is an apparent conflict of interest. The site in question and the author of the article share a common interest/goal and the publication of the material seems to be done to advance that goal. Additionally, it appears that the website just reproduces whatever is submitted, there is no fact checking or any kind of editorial oversight of the material. Therefore I don't think it should be included - the whole second anointing thing is not well documented, and I personally don't think it matters if there exists such an ordinance or not. I do think that if we are to include specific details describing what it entails and whether it is still practiced they should be well documented by multipple, independent, and verifiable sources - not a bunch of rumors that disaffected people keep telling each other. --Trödel 17:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mormon Stories website is technically not a self-publishing effort by John Dehlin. Mormon Stories podcast is owned by the Open Stories Foundation which is a registered 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporation governed by a board of directors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornbelt888 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Stories podcast... again[edit]

It appears that this has been brought up in the past, but I'm not seeing a clear consensus above about this source in particular and there has been a renewed interest by one editor in using it as a source. IMO Dehlin's podcast fails the requirements in WP:SPS - the podcast is essentially a self-published blog in audio form, which is largely not a reliable source per that policy. The only exception for this, according to the policy, is if it is self-published by an expert in the field who has previously published on the subject in reliable, third-party sources. Mormon Stories podcast simply does not satisfy this criteria. I also don't see the use here as satisfying the conditions for use outlined in WP:SELFPUB. I would remind User:Deroque49 about the WP:V policy as well as WP:3RR, which they violated last night, and of WP:AGF, which this edit summary violates. Please explain how the source meets the WP:SPS policy in your view. Consensus needs to be reached here through the usual dispute resolution processes before reinserting the challenged text. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Anointing terminology[edit]

I understand that private may not be exactly synonymous with secret. Might I suggest "confidential" as a good substitute? My concern with secret is that secret is often used by church critics to deride things relating the Latter-day Saint temple worship. 2601:681:8800:E4D0:80AD:7B1:C258:7625 (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation is to use the term given by scholars in the literature. "Secret" seems to be used frequently. I would agree that "secret" doesn't apply to most of the Latter-day Saint temple worship, with the exception of the new name, signs and symbols. With the second anointing it is genuinely a secret, that those who have received it don't reveal even to their close family members. I'm ok with "confidential" every now and again, but think "secret" is ok too. Epachamo (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, I may be right or I may be wrong or somewhere in between. I understand that information on this particular topic isn't very abundant made more difficult due to the fact that there is complete radio silence from the church on this matter. So people are working with what they have. As for terminology, I think we can agree to disagree there. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify our points of view. Thanks. 2601:681:8800:E4D0:8090:4298:5DA5:BCC9 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_anointing&oldid=1210290459"