- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Porter, fwiw, I chose my words very carefully – and you have mischaracterized what I said. I used all kinds of disclaimers in my comment, so let me try to be even more clear in this one: 1)
NOTHING I said was meant to disparage other Christians in any way.What I said is that Mormonism emphasizes God as much as other religions – but that each denomination does so in different ways. Other denominations talk about Jesus more than we do in our worship services and testimonies, but we talk about Heavenly Father (and Heavenly Parents) WAY more than most other denominations do – and we ground everything we teach in terms of becoming like God. Again, when being more expansive that simply focusing on Jesus and focusing on “God” more expansively, we teach about God as much as any other religion – and more so than many denominations who don’t teach as explicitly about becoming like God. 2) I did NOT say that all Protestants and/or evangelicals believe in being saved by confession only, and I certainly understand that many don’t – but I have lived in the Deep South and had long, extensive conversations with lots of people who believe exactly that. I also have studied comparative religion from Catholic and Protestant scholars at a divinity school, and not one of them would argue that many Christians don’t believe in a concept of salvation by confession alone. Every one of them would say, without hesitation, that many Christians believe that. Not all Christians do, by any stretch, but I didn’t say that. I said it is “widespread”.
Those who believe it will couch their explanations in terms of such salvation prompting them to do the work of God, so they do NOT believe they can go out and sin egregiously and still be saved (which I never said), but they always come back to the statement that they have been saved at a particular point in their lives and, in practical terms, cannot fall away and be damned. I’m not speaking theoretically when I say that; I am describing many conversations I have had over the years with really good, faithful, Christian people whom I admire greatly. Again, I said that the idea of being saved by confession of the name of Christ is “widespread” throughout the Protestant and evangelical world – and it is. I literally have heard hundreds of people explain it to me personally. Scale that to the Christian population, and “widespread” is a reasonable summation. The most extreme case of this idea is hardcore Calvin predestination – which posits that God chooses those whom He will save and those whom He will damn, regardless of their actions or professed beliefs. That belief is not uncommon still within the Protestant world.
3) Conceptually, the belief in essentially irrevocable salvation is like the 2nd Anointing – minus any ordinance, of course, but, conceptually, the same idea. Thus, the practice being condemned in this thread (and which I personally don’t like) is, conceptually, no different in theory than what is common in some other Christian religions – but, in Mormonism, it is limited to only a relatively few, while it is much more widely accepted in some other denominations and congregations.
[ Admin Note]: I don’t have unilateral power to delete and modify comments here at will, unless they obviously cross lines that have been established by all the admins and moderators years ago through discussion of what those rules should be. Whenever there is any question, even from me, issues are discussed privately, opinions are solicited among the admins and moderators, and decisions are made accordingly. Often, private messages are sent to the commentor explaining the moderation and asking the person to frame it differently if they want the moderated aspect to stay in the threads. This is NOT my forum, and it never has been. I tend to be the public voice of the admins when editing is done, but any of us can act independently in obvious situations.
Finally, editing of any kind has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I agreed with what is moderated. We have moderated both conservative and liberal statements here, if they violated our rules.
Quote:Conceptually, the belief in essentially irrevocable salvation is like the 2nd Anointing – minus any ordinance, of course, but, conceptually, the same idea.
Wow! I don’t know how I missed that before. Thank you for sharing. The 2A is simply the LDS version of “being saved”.
Porter, You make great points. The past decade of my life I have been a member of the LDS faith and full time participant in Evangelical faith and groups. I have stood hand in hand in prayer with them. I have attended their services and find a richer Christ connected discourse. I love the depth of their plumbing in scripture. We do need to be reminded of this, especially in Mormonism.
Lack of Christ centeredness is one of my nagging complaints. In fairness to Ray – he too has often written on this forum how he would love to see our Sacrament Meetings turned to a full Christ honoring, centered experience. Even going so far as to suggest that the Holy Sacrament be served at the close of the service, thereby filling our personal cups to overflowing – with word, testament, and covenant.
We don’t all always agree on this board but in my experience the admins do a generous job of letting us share our thoughts. I really liked yours today. Extend Ray some Grace.
I believe we absolutely need to focus more in our Sacrament Meetings (especially) on Jesus’ life (both as mortal exemplar, which I believe is our biggest teaching deficiency, and as the Christ) and his post-death status of Savior and Redeemer – and I LOVE the shift over the last decade or so to a MUCH more open acknowledgment and treatment of grace by the top leadership, even as I would love to hear it even more. I believe all religions and Christian denominations are doing it right AND doing it wrong, to varying degrees and with regard to different aspects of godliness. Thus, my statement that we all just teach about “God” differently. I wasn’t trying at all in my comments to say that we are “doing it right” and others are “doing it wrong”. I can see in re-reading my comment how someone could get that impression, especially someone who is relatively new here and hasn’t read so many other comments and posts I’ve written here, but it’s not the message I meant to convey. I apologize if that was the case.
Ray writes: “I believe we absolutely need to focus more in our Sacrament Meetings (especially) on Jesus’ life (both as mortal exemplar, which I believe is our biggest teaching deficiency, and as the Christ) and his post-death status of Savior and Redeemer – and I LOVE the shift over the last decade or so to a MUCH more open acknowledgment and treatment of grace by the top leadership, even as I would love to hear it even more. I believe all religions and Christian denominations are doing it right AND doing it wrong, to varying degrees and with regard to different aspects of godliness. Thus, my statement that we all just teach about “God” differently.”
On this I agree. It is beautiful. Any other points of disagreement I have with Ray I am willing to concede generally as allowable differences in semantics, experience, perspective, etc.
Complete grace is extended to Ray. He does a great job here.
May I summarize for my own benefit.
1. We agree that there is room for improvement with better focus on Jesus/Atonement.
2. No one here is willing to defend or make excuses for the 2A.
3. The concept of the 2A runs counter current to the concept of the Atonement.
4. A large portion if not all current church leaders considered GAs have been given the 2A.
5. Logical leap; Connection between the 4 points above???
I guess my bottom line already stated before: If church leaders want me to follow them in religious matters, then they need to unequivocally follow Christ. This 2A business is a major distraction for me and probably many others. It needs to go.
Our major point of disagreement appears to be that the 2nd Anointing denies the atonement and that, therefore, the LDS Church leadership and anyone else who has received the 2nd Anointing denies the Atonement. We can view the overall issue in multiple ways, but there is no way I will take it to that extreme. I know a few people who have received the 2nd Anointing, and they absolutely do not deny the Atonement – just as the non-Mormon Christians who believe they have been saved also don’t deny the Atonement. By and large, they are among the best Christians I know, and many of them are quite progressive and expansive in their views of the Atonement. I generally don’t mix personal comments with admin comments, but, since it is print in your last comment, I need to say clearly that any more charges that church leaders and those who have received the 2nd Anointing deny the Atonement will be deleted without commentary. We don’t do that sort of judging here; it simply is not in line with our mission.
Porter wrote:I guess my bottom line already stated before: If church leaders want me to follow them in religious matters, then they need to unequivocally follow Christ. This 2A business is a major distraction for me and probably many others. It needs to go.
Just curious how they’re going to convince you about their unequivocally following Christ.
As far as the second anointing goes it’s just an extension and completion of the endowment. Next time you go to the temple listen closely and you’ll see how it fits in. If you’re not interested, just let the church know when they send you a letter to come in to the temple to have it done.
Quote:As far as the second anointing goes it’s just an extension and completion of the endowment. Next time you go to the temple listen closely and you’ll see how it fits in. If you’re not interested, just let the church know when they send you a letter to come in to the temple to have it done.
GBSmith, this seems like a stretch. Yes, it is an extension but one that is intended for the next life and final judgement. As far as being invited in to the temple to receive the 2A. I find this extremely unlikely.
Someone mentioned earlier that they knew a few people who had received the 2A. I’m curious how you know as they are given strict instructions not to share the fact that they received the 2A with anyone. Did they break their promise? Even if they did, the 2A covers them and it is not a sin that would be held against them.
Steve-o wrote:
Someone mentioned earlier that they knew a few people who had received the 2A. I’m curious how you know as they are given strict instructions not to share the fact that they received the 2A with anyone. Did they break their promise? Even if they did, the 2A covers them and it is not a sin that would be held against them.The process, in part, is discussed in Devery Anderson’s “The Development of LDS Temple Worship1846-2000”. I’ve never spoken to anyone who’s had it done.
[ Admin Note]: We are getting into territory that could get this thread closed. Discussing a concept is one thing; calling into question people’s righteousness is another thing entirely. Fwiw, I really enjoyed this discussion thread and feel it has certaintly enlightened my understanding and free agency to choose on a variety of angles to frame this complex topic in my own life. My own grandparents (served abroad as Temple Presidents) are known to have received “A Very Special Blessing” afterward..never referred to as 2A, but known to be this… which my extended family were privy to that knowledge, including us grandkids. I hope I’m not correct in this assertion, but I feel it’s been pressure on my own father to obtain likewise..who is driven to a fault ( ie. at times more concerned about his current temple job/assignments than anything else in real life- including very difficult trials for his children). He has doubled down on his own parents level of temple service now being in retirement himself. I know his personality very well.. in that he doesn’t seek this “Special Blessing” for anything more than honest reasons of “calming his constant anxiety”about whether he has been true and faithful in this life. He may suffer from some diagnostic features around religious scrupulousity..so it’s not fair to level this same situation in Mormonism beyond his own.
I’ll only say it makes me similarly both feel bad for him and happy that he has something to add drive for peace as he gets later in years. He had an extremely hard authoritarian and orthadox style upbringing.
Tangent Alert: my concern now… In a time which many believe to be at the least mild ” boundary keeping” with disciplinary action going on in the church. This being the case perhaps, juxtaposed with what I can gather from other comments here, threre is one website that allegedly stands above the rest in testimony shaking that is run by an individual that cannot be touched because of his own alleged Special Blessing? Am I correct in this assumption? This puts a pit in my stomach if so and I need advice on how to frame that specific issues if anyone has faithful advice on it for me. I don’t understand this at all and it’s a chink in my testimony as this is proof that it’s much more than symbolism right? It truly is the real deal concrete exaltation decided by men here on earth no matter what right? Help with any faithful answers on this one please.
Several years ago had a beloved stake president who truly was an inspired man of God. I realize this was in my more TBM days, but I still believe he was one of the most faithful men I have ever met. After his release he lived in this area (in my ward) for a few more years until he retired and moved to a warmer climate, which was also closer to family. During a particularly spiritual lesson he once gave in HPG, he said that his calling and election was made sure in the temple. I am sure he was referring to the Second Anointing. I am also sure that everyone in that room was ready to hear that and that he violated no rule, commandment, or covenant by telling us. Since I admire his faith, I don’t doubt what he told us and it couldn’t have happened to a better person. Porter wrote:The more pressing topic remains unaddressed. Explain how the 2A does not run counter to faith and repentance. Core Christ centered beliefs…Explain to me how 2A demonstrates the centrality of Christ while displacing the need for His atoning work. This seems pretty basic to me. Sin, estrangement from God and reconciliation through a change of heart and lifelong attempts of improvement of behavior. Explain the 2A and what it speaks to the Laws of Justice and Mercy.
I am not a fan of the whole second anointing concept, but I can see how one might consider it to be in line with the atonement. It could be viewed like this: a person has demonstrated such great faith in Christ, so that person receives an ordinance stating he or she will surely be exalted
becauseof the atonement of Christ. Also keep in mind that those who commit all sorts of sins after being “sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise” “shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption… ” (D&C 132:26) So the 2a does not get anyone out of being accountable. I’m not subscribing to this- just pointing it out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.