- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In a lifetime of active church membership and multiple leadership callings I’d never heard of the 2A until a member of my ward asked me about it. I was certain they must be mistaken, otherwise I would have heard of it. So I started researching and this was the first massive crack in my shelf. What I learned about the 2A felt elitist. For the first time in my life I felt like I was on the outside of the church looking in and that I was the swine the brethren didn’t want to cast their pearls before me. Maybe that’s unfair, but it’s how I felt. I have 3 questions-
1- Why does the church not teach about this saving ordinance? Is it merely an administrative weakness; not enough brethren to administer the ordinance? We are taught to seek after spiritual gifts so why shouldn’t we learn about and seek after the 2nd annointing as we would other temple blessings? When I asked the temple president about the ordinance he acted as if it didn’t exist. Maybe he didn’t know but I certainly hope a temple president would be aware of this temple ordinance.
2- Why is a 2nd annointing necessary at all in this life? It essentially ordains men and women as priests/kings, priestesses/queens in which they are guaranteed salvation. A judgement passed by men, instead of God. Why would it be necessary for men to pass this kind of judgement? Why not wait for the next life?
3- If women are “ordained” as a priestess, they hold the priesthood and it sounds like they hold a priesthood office. So when we get to the issue of Ordain Women asking for the ordination of women, it seems it would be more accurate to state it as a request to ordain ALL women instead of just a few.
What are your thoughts? (no need to answer all questions at once- consider this a smorgasbord of questions to choose from
1 – Because they don’t want everyone requesting it, or resentment over people not getting it. Also, if someone who gets it defaults, they can disclaim it. Apparently it’s very difficult to be excommunicated if you have it. 2 – It is considered to available in the next life.
3 – I have always said women already hold the priesthood, through confirmation, endowment and even membership of relief society etc.
I see ours as a church of carrots. If you read Extensions of Power by Michael Quinn, he describes the frustrations early leaders had with keeping the Saints motivated serve over the long run (to “endure to the end”). I believe that one of the reasons the two-year TR interview and the temple are in place is to provide people with the regular pressure to keep aspiring to spiritual greatness (and serving the church). I’ve seen how hard it is to get high levels of commitment from volunteers, so the ordinances we receive after baptism (I believe) are there to keep everyone striving and serving.
I see the Second Annointing as yet another goal for someone to aspire to after they’ve run the full distance with the existing ordinances. Something to keep the membership responding. I know it’s not talked about very much, but I think for highly committed members it could be very motivating.
Personally, I don’t agree with a guarantee before the full course has been run, but what do I know.
Steve-o wrote:In a lifetime of active church membership and multiple leadership callings I’d never heard of the 2A until a member of my ward asked me about it. I was certain they must be mistaken, otherwise I would have heard of it. So I started researching and this was the first massive crack in my shelf. What I learned about the 2A felt elitist. For the first time in my life I felt like I was on the outside of the church looking in and that I was the swine the brethren didn’t want to cast their pearls before me. Maybe that’s unfair, but it’s how I felt.
I agree. With some of the stuff I was learning on my mission it seamed that there were always more secrets that would be revealed after I had been proven worthy of them. Holy of holies, peep stones under the altar, meanings of sacred gestures, etc. I thought that when I got back to the states where the church was more established then the information would come.
To my surprise most members don’t know anything about this kind of stuff. There is part of the BofA facsimilie that says that the meaning can only be revealed in the temple. I asked the temple president IN the temple about it and he told me that he didn’t know.
1) I wouldn’t call it a saving ordinance – more like a historical oddity. Similar to the office of presiding patriarch or the adam-god theory or blood atonement or palygamy, I believe it just got to the point where it had outlived its usefulness. The concept of being locked into salvation just didn’t fit well with our endure to the end doctrine.
2) I believe it was useful in the early days to solidify loyalty to the church.
3) Imagine that women do have the priesthood but are not permitted to excercise it. Is it still the priesthood? What would this ordination afford the woman who receives it?
In my view priesthoood = authority. In our church, women do not have authority except over children and other women. Even this limited authority is always at the direction and discretion of the priesthood.
The following are posts and threads either about the 2nd anointing directly or that have quite a few comments about it: “
Temple Question” ( http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=988&hilit=anointing 2nd Anointing “Calling and Election Made Sure”?( http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=988&hilit=anointing I recommend reading them to get a feel for the views of people who have participated here in the past.
Thanks, Ray. I’ve reviewed those threads as suggested. Quote:1 – Because they don’t want everyone requesting it, or resentment over people not getting it. Also, if someone who gets it defaults, they can disclaim it. Apparently it’s very difficult to be excommunicated if you have it.
2 – It is considered to available in the next life.
SamBee, thanks for your comments.
1-I agree they view it is somewhat unmanageable if everyone were to seek it but that problem is easily solved. The ordinances is performed via delegated priesthood keys. All that would be required to make it more available is to delegate to more people, ie temple presidents, mission presidents, stake presidents etc.
2- I have no problem with a calling and election being made sure with a visitation from Christ or it happening in the next life as part of final judgement but it seems very presumptuous to claim the authority to afford someone their FINAL judgement in this life.
The ordinance used to be much more common and I imagine there were issues with people failing to live worthily (in a visible way) that created many problems.
There is a story about Pres. Kimball’s wife standing in the circle and laying her hands on his head during a priesthood blessing. To me this certainly sounds like women, at least those who have received the 2A, are ordained priesthood holders.
In my opinion based on everything I’ve read, the 2nd Anointing was in the early church a saving ordnance, and it was “having your calling and election made sure” in the truest sense (or so they believed). Since then, if you could get a modern apostle to talk about it, they would tell you it is not a saving ordnance, and it is not having your calling and election made sure. Today it is the “carrot” on the stick, to make those who have given their life to serving the church a nice pat on the back, letting them live their old age in content.
Sheldon wrote:In my opinion based on everything I’ve read, the 2nd Anointing was in the early church a saving ordnance, and it was “having your calling and election made sure” in the truest sense (or so they believed). Since then, if you could get a modern apostle to talk about it, they would tell you it is not a saving ordnance, and it is not having your calling and election made sure. Today it is the “carrot” on the stick, to make those who have given their life to serving the church a nice pat on the back, letting them live their old age in content.
I agree Sheldon. But why do it at all. If it is not a saving ordinace and it is not having your calling and election made sure then it is completely optional in the mortal sphere. Why continue to have an ordinance that is so secret that most members don’t even know it exists? Why make people who have received it promise not to tell anyone about it? Doesn’t that tend to make us seem elitist and cultish at the same time?
Yes, it does – especially for those who see it purely symbolic and not binding in a literal way (like me). I wouldn’t mind if it disappeared, but it means a lot to those who participate, so I’m okay with it for them. Quote:Yes, it does – especially for those who see it purely symbolic and not binding in a literal way (like me). I wouldn’t mind if it disappeared, but it means a lot to those who participate, so I’m okay with it for them.
The problem is, the 2A isn’t granted to some as a “symbol” of something to come. It is quite literally a guarantee of exaltation, forfeited only by the shedding of innocent blood.
Like anything else we can accept the literal teaching or choose to consider it metaphorically, but the church claims the ability to annoint and grant exaltation. This is the problem.
Looks like Ray posted the same link twice. Here’s the “2nd Annointing ‘Calling and Election made Sure’?” thread: Thanks, Shawn. Quote:the church claims the ability to annoint and grant exaltation. This is the problem.
Absolutely – which is why I don’t take it literally, no matter how it is presented. I also recognize, however, that there probably aren’t any horrible, no good, very bad sinners who experience it, so I’m okay with it being special for them even though I have no desire to experience it. It’s no skin off my nose, so I pretty much ignore it.
Quote:It’s no skin off my nose, so I pretty much ignore it.
Yeah, I kind of get that but I guess my pride may be getting the best of me. It irritates me that there is a super special VIP Mormon that I’m not included in or even told about. The arrogance of granting exaltation bothers me but also the exclusion as though I’m the swine they don’t want to cast their pearls before.
One of the other threads had the name of a book about the 2nd annointing. I had to get an interlibrary loan from the University of Utah to get the book, but I finally received it and read it. Lots of details and very interesting, especially since the ordninance seemed fairly common up through the early 1900s. In fact at one point it seemed to be a “saving ordinance” until about the early 1900s, considered just as necessary as baptism for eternal life. For some reason I’m able to blow off this ordinance although it bothers me for many of the same reasons that Steve-o outlines. It strikes me as a particular mormon brand of hubris.
It also strikes me as odd that the ordinance is meant to be symbolic- eternal life awarded in mortal life. It seems meant to be literally sealing a person up to eternal life. I mean what’s the point, if anything it would give people a sense of overconfidence that whatever they do in this life is ok. I think that early leaders got carried away is the simplest explanation.
What happens if after someone gets the 2nd annointing, they go out and commit a heinous crime? Has their been any guidance on that one?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.