- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SD: That did happen historically. For example, some committed adultery afterward, and they were considered to still be OK with God. Obviously, that’s a load of crap IMO. I tend to agree with those who think it’s hubris. I explained it this way: early church members continually created new ways to distinguish the top elite people from the rest: polygamy, temple ordinances (beginning with washing & anointing then later the endowment). When each thing was no longer exclusive enough, they created a new super duper exclusive level. Second anointing fits this description to me. Too many people get to the temple, so let’s be sure there’s another level even higher up. It had nearly fallen out of favor when one of the Q12 (can’t remember which one unfortunately – maybe JFS) made sure it was kept. At that point, hardly anybody had done 2A outside the Q12, but then they started it up again. That’s how Tom Phillips eventually got included, and we know how that has gone. He’s now sued the church and is anti and living in Portugal. He says the 2A was a great experience, but that he didn’t know that the earth wasn’t really more than 6000 years old, so now that science exists, he believes the church is lying about everything.
SilentDawning wrote: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.
This is especially obvious with males and priesthood ordination. 8 baptism, patriarchal blessing, 12 deacon, 14 teacher, 16 priest, 18 elder, mission, marriage; major ordinances/goals for males are spaced roughly two years apart during the formative years to ensure that there is always something to work toward on the horizon. The hope is that once someone has completed these steps they will be firmly on the path to self motivation. In that light I’ve often wondered why the endowment is presented the way it is. They could piecemeal the endowment over 2, 3, 4, or 5 sessions with the intent of continuing the pattern of always having something on the horizon for people to work toward. Of course marriage is reserved for those that have received a complete endowment so that wouldn’t work out too well under that model (another reason to separate sealings and marriages IMO). That and it would further complicate vicarious work.
Back on subject, the 2nd anointing.
What is more powerful, having a few elite yet fallible men extend you the privilege of receiving the ordinance of the 2nd anointing or having a personal spiritual witness that gives you the same level of assurances but without the ordinance?
Like with Enos. Where was his ordinance? In the end Enos received what I believe many people desiring the 2nd anointing are after, reassurance that they are okay in the eyes of god.
Some people may need an ordinance to feel inner peace, reassurance, something to help them let go of anxiety related to their eternal status, etc. For them the ordinance may be the catalyst that they need to receive that type of personal revelation. On the other hand I believe there are many people that can receive that same personal revelation without the ordinance.
I have been struggling with the temptation to respond to this discussion for days. Please forgive me if this is out of line. Just delete it. I have issues with the 2A.
Ordained as “Gods and Goddesses,” “Kings and Queens,” “Priests and Priestesses.”
“calling and election made sure”
“sealed up to the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom”
Is President Thomas B. Monson a God or not? He has so been ordained in the holy temple, (my guess by Harold B. Lee or else one of the other apostles/prophets).
What do these statements mean? How can they mean anything other than a guarantee of the highest reward promised by Mormonism in the next life, Godhood? Any sins committed are not held against them by God although they might suffer consequences at the hands of men. If it means anything less, then it is like giving a man an airplane but then finding out it is a paper airplane not a real one. No hint that this is an allegory. It is deceitful if it is less than asserted. Is the explanation of the 2A watered down to nothing more than a ritualistic reminder of the gifts promised to every single one of us? We all have the promise of this reward upon the conditions of righteousness and conditions of forgiveness through the atonement. If the 2A is actually less than what it says it is, then why the extreme secrecy? This does not make sense.
What makes sense is that the 2A is what it says it is and I have an even bigger problem. The 2A nullifies the further need for the Atonement of Christ in that person. They no longer need rely upon the grace of Christ. They no longer think repentance is a principle that applies to them. The 2A is frankly an anti-Christ heresy. Explain to me how it is not. Those who are ordained, who ordain others and who actually believe in the 2A are no longer practicing Christians as far as this topic goes. In addition, this doubly violates the Laws of Justice and Mercy; that we are responsible for what we do, while relying upon the mercy of Christ for forgiveness. The recipient of the 2A can sin and not repent and not be punished by God? What doctrine is this?
It is beyond my comprehension how a sincere and practicing and believing and blessed Christian could ever allow themselves to be given the 2A. If somehow this “privilege” was ever foisted upon me I would not accept it. I would say, I do not need you to ordain me to be a God or anything else. Because I am standing on the promises of Jesus Christ, my Savior. Has this ever happened? Because it needs to happen- more often.
This is serious and bad enough, but all theoretical so far. What is the practical effect of having hundreds if not thousands of top leadership in this church being secretly given the 2A and ordained to Godhood? Beyond pride and clannishness?
I have noticed for many years that in comparison to protestant and particularly evangelical churches, the LDS church does not place as much emphasis on Christ. This can be objectively measured by listening to testimonies given, scriptures read, hymns sang, lessons taught and sermons preached. Many members agree with this observation and a few GA speeches also imply a need for improvement in this area. The most compelling simple example is the need President Gordon B. Hinckley felt to add a subtitle to the Book of Mormon, “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”
This problem is more than one of omission, distraction or neglect. In place of Christ as the central object of our worship we as a people have erected an idol. We worship the institution of the church and in some cases the adoration we hold for Joseph Smith or the current top leadership borders upon worship. I do not think this is a coincidence. The top leadership believes they are Gods. It becomes impossible for the lesser Gods among them who have been given the 2A not to treat them as greater Gods and difficult for the even lower level uninitiated leadership not to fawn and flatter and monkey those above them. The greatest barrier to bringing Christ into the center of worship in Mormonism is the secret existence of the 2A and the strong authoritarianism that it spawns, in my opinion.
Other side issues include the concept of the “more sure word of prophecy” which seems to indicate a promise of something akin to omniscience. This is correlated with the tendency of our leadership to be resistant to anything they didn’t think of themselves. Their forgivable but obvious lack of omniscience is demonstrated frequently and I personally don’t have much of a problem with it except as it interferes with dialogue and progress.
The 2A includes the gift to live as long as desired. I agree many of them do live beyond what is usually expected. But if a busy person actually believes they will live as long as desired, perhaps they are reluctant to devote a day to having that recommended colonoscopy at age 50 and every decade thereafter. Quite literally it is a pain in the ass. And this might explain why Bruce R. McKonkie died at around age 60 of colon cancer and Gordon B. Hinckley of a more benign variety of the same malady, both preventable deaths.
President Hinckley was accused of stretching the truth on occasion to paint the church in the best light in front of the media. But what kind of a liar does the 2A make President Hinckley when he said to Larry King on national television, in response to a question about the Snow couplet (As man is now, God once was. As God is now, man may become) that “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. …. “ Yet President Hinckley does know. He has already been ordained a God and he has already become “as God is now.” He had likely ordained many others recently. And if he had the more sure word of prophecy, how did he not know this as he claims?
I sustain President Thomas B. Monson and the rest of them as prophets, seers and revelators; especially since I am allowed to a degree to define what that means for myself. I do not sustain any of them as Gods nor Kings. Neither should any of you! As this becomes more widely understood via the Internet, perhaps our leadership will finally be forced to repent of this childish diabolical nonsense and turn whole-heartedly toward Christ, as was allegedly recommended by David O. McKay over half a century ago.
I promise to go back in my cave and keep my thoughts to myself and behave for awhile.
Much of your comment is fine, Porter; a little of it crossed lines we don’t allow here – like the allegations about Bro. Romney with no supporting source. We don’t do character assassination here (of anyone), and that part, as worded, was character assassination. Therefore, I deleted it. Everyone here knows that those who participate in the 2nd Anointing take it literally and that it is meant to be literal. We simply don’t accept it as literal and, mostly, reject the central premise, as you do. I simply want to address a couple of things from your comment that I think are really extreme, incorrect assertions and conclusions and which are factually incorrect:
Quote:I have noticed for many years that in comparison to protestant and particularly evangelical churches, the LDS church does not place as much emphasis on Christ.
We also teach of a separate and distinct Heavenly Father (which they don’t do), and when you look at how our theology and beliefs compare to other denominations it is crystal clear that we emphasize “God” as much as any other denomination – even MUCH more so if you consider our emphasis on doing what Jesus said his followers should do and our emphasis on actually becoming like Jesus.
We simply teach differently about God.Also, the decision to add “another testament of Jesus Christ” had nothing to do with not emphasizing Jesus before that time. It was a missionary effort to emphasize Jesus to people who assumed we aren’t Christian. It was meant to show our existing emphasis, not to admit a lack of emphasis.
Finally, ANY denomination that teaches anything like a “saved by confession only” concept is going to spend less time talking about what we are supposed to do and more about whom we are supposed to worship.
It’s a simple matter of mathematics and available time.To even imply Mormons are not Christian to the same degree as other Christians is wrong – or based on different measuring standards; Mormons simply worship God differently than many other Christians. To me, that is extremely important to understand.
Quote:The 2A is frankly an anti-Christ heresy (and people who go through it aren’t real Christians, anymore).
The concept that, at some point, people are saved by Jesus is the HEART of Christianity – and the most extreme case is NOT the 2nd Anointing (that occurs near the end of one’s life, relatively speaking) but rather the belief that once someone confesses the name of Jesus (say, at 12 years of age) that person is saved and cannot fall. That belief is widespread throughout Christianity – especially among the Protestant and evangelical denominations you say are more Christ-centered than Mormonism. To say that the 2nd Anointing is heretical while extolling the evangelical emphasis on Jesus is . . . (every word I can think of is too strong to use here in this forum).
Lastly, President Hinckley NEVER said that he didn’t know if we can become like God. That is a horrible, twisted charge that doesn’t fit AT ALL the actual interview from which it is taken. He wasn’t asked about that half of the couplet, so his answer didn’t address it at all. He was asked ONLY about the idea that God once was mortal – and he answered that by correctly saying that we don’t emphasize that anymore. We need to stop perpetuating the nonsense that he denied exaltation or said we don’t know about it and don’t teach it. That’s not what he said.
I would like to read the transcript of the interview where Hinckley made the statement, without any apologetic, or critic commentary, so I could make up my own mind on the matter. Anyone have a link? Devery Anderson’s, “Development of LDS Temple Worship” has a lot of references to the second anointing. The book is interesting in that it’s a compilation of memos, directives, letters, etc. with commentary only at the beginning of a section. It has become re emphasized after it was noted that not all of the 12 had received it. hawkgrrrl wrote:SD: That did happen historically. For example, some committed adultery afterward, and they were considered to still be OK with God. Obviously, that’s a load of crap IMO. I tend to agree with those who think it’s hubris. I explained it this way: early church members continually created new ways to distinguish the top elite people from the rest: polygamy, temple ordinances (beginning with washing & anointing then later the endowment). When each thing was no longer exclusive enough, they created a new super duper exclusive level. Second anointing fits this description to me. Too many people get to the temple, so let’s be sure there’s another level even higher up.
It had nearly fallen out of favor when one of the Q12 (can’t remember which one unfortunately – maybe JFS) made sure it was kept. At that point, hardly anybody had done 2A outside the Q12, but then they started it up again. That’s how Tom Phillips eventually got included, and we know how that has gone. He’s now sued the church and is anti and living in Portugal. He says the 2A was a great experience, but that he didn’t know that the earth wasn’t really more than 6000 years old, so now that science exists, he believes the church is lying about everything.
I have believed this for some time and it’s probably the main reason that at some point in time I’ll decide that continued active participation for the sake of family won’t be worth it anymore.
CWald, the thread on the spiritual stuff page has some information but I didn’t see a link to the whole interview.
cwald, it contains my analysis, but the actual interview question and answer is on my personal blog in the following post. Feel free to read the question and the answer and ignore my commentary: http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/12/pres-hinckleys-interview-with-mike.html I need the transcript of the paragraphs prior from where your start. Your blog post skipped that part, and used block parentheses to identify the question, rather than quoting the conversation, hence, I still only have an apologetic rendition of the conversation. I have learned to be skeptical. … no personal offense meant. But I simply will not accept your explanation or version without reading the actual transcript.
Does that make sense?
The exact question asked was: Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.
A: Yeah.
Q: …about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?
President Hinckley’s complete response was:
A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.
From FairMormon. “President Hinckley quotes Lorenzo Snow
“Finally, any claim that President Hinckley did not believe the King Follett Discourse or the Lorenzo Snow couplet has to deal with this contemporary public statement from a talk he gave in October 1994 General Conference:
“…[T]he whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom.[4]
“Although he did not mention the other half of President Snow’s statement (“As man is, God once was”), it’s quite clear from the context that President Hinckley was aware of and agreed with it.”
What?
I repeat.
“Although he did not mention the other half of President Snow’s statement (“As man is, God once was”), it’s quite clear from the context that President Hinckley was aware of and agreed with it.”
This is why people like myself get pissed, and confused. And why I think is his answer was dishonest and disingenuous.
“It is clear that this doctrine is still taught today. (At least it was taught at the time this interview happened.) The first chapter of the current edition (1992) of the Latter-day Saint teaching manual, Gospel Principles (Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints,1992 ed., p. 9.), quotes from the above passage under the heading What Kind of Being Is God?: “The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible — I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). God is a glorified and perfected man, a personage of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22″
Quote:“Although he did not mention the other half of President Snow’s statement (“As man is, God once was”), it’s quite clear from the context that President Hinckley was aware of and agreed with it.”
So freaking what?How is that of any relevance to his answer in the TIME interview? Just to say it, this came from FairMormon – and you constantly (and properly, in most cases) reject what FairMormon says – but now you are using FairMormon to say President Hinckley lied – even when FairMormon itself admits he didn’t mention it in any way – when absolutely everything he actually said in the TIME interview is 100% accurate.
I find it HIGHLY ironic that you wanted a source for the quote that wasn’t tainted by apologetics in any way and then turned around and cited a classic apologetic site you despise to assert something that is completely irrelevant to the interview in question.1) He wasn’t asked what HE believed; he was asked if the Church teaches it. His own personal opinion is completely irrelevant to the discussion, since he wasn’t asked about that. You can’t lie about something if you answer correctly the question you are asked, even if your own opinion is different.
That is no different than someone asking you, cwald, if the Church teaches something you DON’T believe and you answering, “Yes, it does,” without mentioning that you don’t believe it. That answer would be the absolute, total, complete truth, not a lie. If someone accused you of lying by not mentioning your own opinion, you would be outraged.
2) The first part of the couplet is quoted in ONE sentence of a four-page lesson about the second part of the couplet and completely, totally ignored in the rest of the lesson – and not mentioned at all, in any way, in the additional materials or suggested questions and discussion prompts. Since the second part of the couplet is the focus of the lesson, if the first part wasn’t quoted, everyone would be up in arms about white-washing – but it in NO way whatsoever is emphasized in any manual, and I haven’t heard it taught in General Conference in my lifetime. I know individual members who believe it wholeheartedly – but I haven’t heard it taught or emphasized by the Church in any organized, official way. It’s the exact same as the Adam/God theory or blood atonement or the former justifications for the Priesthood ban in that respect: still believed and discussed privately by some members but not actively taught or emphasized by the Church itself.
Thus, it is perfectly honest to say that the Church (“we”) doesn’t teach or emphasize it – and the “emphasize it” was a clarification of “teach it”. ( He said “teach” first and then immediately clarified it with “emphasize”.) Those were his exact words – spoken in the common Utah vernacular of his generation (“I don’t know that . . .” meaning “I wouldn’t say that . . .”), which I heard my parents’ and grandparents’ generation use constantly growing up and understood immediately in context, as I said in my post. I grew up hearing that phrasing, so the meaning was crystal clear and obvious to me – and that is NOT an apologetic response. It literally was part of my upbringing and absolutely obvious to those who grew up hearing it.
Insisting on ignoring that common phrasing and taking “I don’t know that . . .” to mean, literally, “I don’t know the answer to . . .” is making someone an offender for a word – and for someone like me to frame it in any other way would be lying. It’s not lying for those who didn’t grow up hearing it and, therefore, didn’t understand it for what it was, but it would be lying for those like me who understood it immediately.
I’ll think about what you said. Respond later. “Old-Timer wrote: He wasn’t asked if he believes it. He was asked if the Church teaches it…” Here is a question. In 1997, the time of the interview, was this FairMormon quote correct that the gospel principles manuel, was teaching that God was once a man? Also. Does the D&c reference cited in the article claim that god was once a man. … and is it still printed in the standard works?
If so, why?
I was an SSP and taught GD for 12 years. 1997-2010… I taught this concept many times. …. Because it was in the manual and it was in the D&C.
I TAUGHT THE MANUEL ray.
If President Hinckley is correct, then I hope the people will listen to their own prophets and this has been removed from the teaching manuels (GD) and the scriptures (cited in the FairMormon Article) since that time.
I will think about Ray’s response. Mods can delete all this if need be. I dont care. I Feel like I’m doing more harm than good here to be honest. I probably should take a break…. I’ve done so in the past.
Sorry friends I believe in what Kate Kelly said this week. ..”stay in the church… that change can happen within the church…”
I’m just not the kind of person to do it. It doesn’t work for me. Out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.