- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
OK…it was brought up in another introduction thread. I didn’t want to accidently hijack a great inroduction thread so thought I would start a new one. I have heard rumor of the “2nd endowment” or “2nd annointing” and thought it was one of those old anti-mormon myths…right along with the hidden horns and gold coins on our eyes to get into heaven.
So….apparently there was a former stake president who posted his details about this…and it seemed respectful….
This is another one of those “hey…where has that information been?” moments…the kind we here at StayLDS are getting used to…and generally why most of us come here.
A quick internet search says it is well documented in the 19th century church. Wikipedia refers to it and says it is happening today.
I thought FAIRS took the classic LDS approach that makes me think it is true (you know…only the unrighteous would ask that!) rather than denying it.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Second_anointing “FAIR is confident that no faithful Latter-day Saint would want to learn about such a sacred matter from unauthorized sources. Furthermore, no Latter-day Saint would wisely seek such information prematurely, any more than a parent would want a child to read an unauthorized transcript of the temple endowment prior to attending the temple for the first time.”
So…is this doctrine or not?
Yeah, it’s “doctrine” (what is taught at any given time) – but I really couldn’t care less about it. It doesn’t bother me in any way, but I’m just not into that sort of thing. It is powerful for those for whom it is powerful, just like most other things in life. I’m cool with that.
I was just getting to the point in my thinking where I thought I’d be able to leave the past in the past. Then I found out about this. I can hardly believe it’s happening now. And I find the blurb at FAIR patronizing. Ann wrote:I was just getting to the point in my thinking where I thought I’d be able to leave the past in the past. Then I found out about this. I can hardly believe it’s happening now. And I find the blurb at FAIR patronizing.
I didn’t mean to upset anyone…I just sort of want to know what it is the real doctrine….I do think that secrets don’t play well.
I actually read about it a couple days ago. It explains some mindsets I could never “figure” before. But I am less optimistic than ever that I will increase in love and respect for the temple. Or that I will see changes in my lifetime that will make it more beautiful and meaningful to me. Really, I can’t express how shocked I am.
I has been discussed here (I thnk?), and it’s possible that there won’t be inclination to get into it again.
It’s discussed in the excellent book Mysteries of Godliness which is also a respectful view of the historical origins of the temple. Personally, it does bother me. We are still in mortality. I don’t believe that we can really have our calling & election made sure through this type of ceremony that basically no-matter-what-you-do-from-here-on-out, you are saved. That just doesn’t jibe for me. The fact that anyone would think a second anointing would be binding even if someone committed adultery later or murder or was dishonest – well, that to me is just ridiculous wishful thinking. So from a human nature standpoint, I don’t think it reflects well on those who do think it’s possible, and if these whispers are to be believed, that’s some high ranking leadership who believe it. I prefer to think that even the prophet must work out his own salvation with fear & trembling, just like everybody else. Doesn’t a belief that no matter what you do, you will be saved just create complacency and over confidence?
Count me in the don’t believe it is a binding ordinance and don’t like that it exists camp. But also count me in the group of people for whom it would never apply. Under that rule, I suppose Ray is right – it’s not my kind of thing, so maybe I’m just not someone for whom it would be meaningful.
This is like the moment when I was about four years old cutting out a stick figure. With the last snip I realized that there would be nothing left. To be perfectly clear, I really do believe there are people at the point in their lives where they truly would not do anything that would cause their salvation / exaltation to be in jeopardy. I think there are a lot of people like that, actually. For that reason, I don’t have a problem with the foundational concept and principle behind the idea of a 2nd Anointing, even as I agree with Hawkgirl about the extreme danger of believing in it at the personal level for some people. A ceremony of any kind putting it into symbolic reality just doesn’t do anything for me. I think it’s ironic, in a very real way, since humility is an important aspect of how I see godliness. For me, personally, being part of something like that would violate my own sense of humility – but I honestly can see how it wouldn’t for some others.
In other words, while I have no problem understanding and accepting the concept and principle with regard to others, I just can’t accept it for myself – and, in my perspective, that basic difference should be the way it’s seen by everyone. I phrase things that way rarely (“should” for everyone else), but this is one of them.
Also, Ann, fwiw, I see this as one of the “fringe” things in the Church, regardless of who believes in it. I don’t let the fringe things play a large part of my life, and I don’t let them affect me much, either. That’s true of my faith, my religion, my job, my family and any other aspect of my life.
Apologies, I think it might have been me that mentioned it, and I can’t remember where. Ann, I still, still, owe you a post on the temple as a parable. Sorry it’s taken so long. I really love the Endowment, it’s one of the aspects in my ‘why I stay’ list. I also appreciate that many people have it at the top of their list of dislikes and I can understand why.
I know very little about it, but I believe it’s to do with endorsing someone’s dedication to the Lord and recognising their role in his kingdom. Given it’s done (or was done) privately it’s not a ‘status symbol.’
I don’t worry about it. But I’m very sorry that mentioning has caused further harm. I realise that I’m in a forum of support and need to be more aware of what I say being read by others. I would be devastated to think my comments hastened someone’s departure from the church.
Well, I agree with Ray that it is totally fringe. It’s not front and center in any way, and the fact that it is “known” outside of those who have had it done means that it’s not really a guarantee of calling and election being made sure – else they would not have gotten to the point where they would reveal it. In the book I mentioned Mysteries of Godliness (see above), it was administered much more freely 100 years ago, and there were quite a few people who later violated it, committed adultery, or whatever – otherwise fell away. So it was largely done away with. But I simply don’t believe it’s possible to bind people in this way. It ain’t over until the fat lady sings. If we’re breathing, we can still screw it up. I have always had an interest in this from a psychological perspective. Even as a TBM I was suspicious of polygamy. I have always wondered how this election being made sure and that no other sins you do outside of murder might play into a guilty conscience regarding polygamous sex. I think there is some insight into the psyche of the prophet there but I’m too much of an engineer to figure that stuff out but my intuition tells me there is something fishy going on. Anyone have any insight? I am not well read on this and have only studied it on my mission 10 years ago…
I stumbled on this a couple of months back, when I read somewhere that Emma Smith was given the priesthood in conjunction with her becoming part of the Quorum of the Anointed. I can’t remember where I read it, but only that the site was a little suspect. So I did what any good questioning LDS person does. Ask FAIR. Anyway, I got this email back: Quote:Issues of the temple are quite clearly problematic to discuss, and as a policy FAIR is very careful to not use the language of the temple nor discuss directly the temple ceremony as they are sacred, and we have made covenants to not discuss them. As such, we can only tangentially address your question from an historic perspective.
The “Quorum of the Anointed” is a term used to identify those married couples who received, during the life of Joseph Smith, an ordinance associated with having one’s calling and election “made sure” (being assured of receiving your exaltation) known as the “Second Anointing”. It is alluded to in the endowment ceremony most members are familiar with…
It went on to talk about how this addressed my questions about the priesthood. This was the first that I had heard about a second anointing, although I grew up hearing that we can have our calling and election made sure. I had never given any thought to this concept though.
One of the problems with having secrets like this that we can’t talk about is that it just makes people want to know more. It kind of bothered me that FAIR’s response to my question was basically “Yes, but it is a secret.” So I did what any “bad” LDS person does, search the internet, where I stumbled on this story of the SP.
While I agree that this is fringe stuff and really doesn’t matter to me and my life, having these kinds of secrets in the church is a dangerous practice. If we want people to chase the white rabbit down the hole then having secret ceremonies that the majority of endowed aren’t allowed to know is a good start. The more someone has to look outside of the church for answers to church questions, the less they will trust the church.
ihhi wrote:The more someone has to look outside of the church for answers to church questions, the less they will trust the church.
I remember all sorts of mysteries from the mission days. Is there a holy of holies in the temple? Do the Q15 wash each other’s feet? What about dusting our feet for people that don’t listen to the gospel message? Is the arm positioning we make in the baptism ceremony (both to perform the baptism and to receive baptism) related to any of the arm gestures in the temple?
In the circular facsimile from the BOA, there is an explanation to part of it saying that it is to be revealed in the temple. When I had the opportunity to meet with the temple president inside the temple, I asked him about it. He said he didn’t know and I believe him. I believe that some things are fully explained to people in leadership positions. I believe that many other things are not well understood, are speculative, or are artifacts from a different time that don’t make much sense in the modern church.
Now onto some discussion of the 2nd anointing…. I like it for several reasons:
1) My wife and I would get to bless each other. I imagine this to be a very personal, intimate, and potentially powerful event.
2) The endowment as I understand it is only partially complete. If there is value to the endowment how can I dismiss value from its “second half?”
3) I like ordinances that have the potential to draw people together. For this reason I place much value in baptizing my children and passing on my priesthood line of authority. I hope to be an escort for my son should he go to the temple one day. Ordinances that draw people together have value.
4) To expand on reason number 3, I feel some sadness that women who are about to deliver are no longer blessed and administered to by members of the relief society. I believe that legalistic misunderstandings were to blame for this. I am therefore reluctant to decry other ordinances for similar legalistic mis-applications.
I do not believe that I would ever be asked to participate, but if it happened I would find it meaningful.
I do not buy into the whole calling and election sure business to the point of being a sure thing or grandfathered in or anything like that. I think that we currently place extreme emphasis on getting married/sealed in the temple as though this has some type of magical significance. That those that are sealed will be together forever even if they both die moments after the ceremony, while those that have lived their entire lives in devoted service to each other but are not sealed will be forever alone in the eternities. I believe that there is value in the metaphor of becoming one and being an eternal family and perhaps some people need to take that literally in order to enjoy a benefit. I know that there is some confusion as to exactly what the sealing to our children entitles us to if our children grow up to make bad choices. Some have hope that there will be a second chance for the wayward son or that the righteousness of the parent may be considered on behalf of the child. Others write these children off as “empty seats at the table.”
For those individuals that view the sealing in a literal way it might be really difficult to switch into the realm of metaphor with the second anointing.
To paraphrase Ray:
I believe that any couple that truly becomes “one” will have their relationship ratified by a sealing ceremony eventually (if any such thing is actually required and not just an outward symbol of an inner commitment). Also no couple that does not become “one” will be able to fall back on a ceremony as a substitute.
Likewise, I believe that any couple that is right in their hearts with God will have that relationship or orientation (towards God) ratified by a second anointing ceremony eventually (if any such thing is actually required and not just an outward symbol of an inner status – an inner calm). Also, no couple that does not acquire and maintain the proper relationship with God will be able to fall back on a ceremony as a substitute.
P.S. If anyone on the Second Anointing selection committee is reading this, Can you send invites via PM? J/K
😆 Roy wrote:ihhi wrote:The more someone has to look outside of the church for answers to church questions, the less they will trust the church.
I remember all sorts of mysteries from the mission days. Is there a holy of holies in the temple? Do the Q15 wash each other’s feet? What about dusting our feet for people that don’t listen to the gospel message? Is the arm positioning we make in the baptism ceremony (both to perform the baptism and to receive baptism) related to any of the arm gestures in the temple? ….
I think the main issue is that most of the wacky things that were rumored on our missions, etc were always assumed to be wacky rumors…it is not a good thing to find out that wacky thing is actually true…
There is a burden placed on a church that claims to be Gods one and only…..most people assume that “God can not lie” and that God is “the same yesterday , today and tomorrow”. So when things like this were there and then aren’t then are brought back and not documented, seem to be given out based on some strange system available to a select few….well…that means od is a “Respecter of persons”. Of course this leads to forums like this for the people who have had their worlds rocked and are trying to pick up and keep going…
Roy wrote:4) To expand on reason number 3, I feel some sadness that women who are about to deliver are no longer blessed and administered to by members of the relief society. I believe that legalistic misunderstandings were to blame for this. I am therefore reluctant to decry other ordinances for similar legalistic mis-applications.
What the cr@p? Women used to bless moms ready to deliver? Ok…I want some details.
….
Roy wrote:P.S. If anyone on the Second Anointing selection committee is reading this, Can you send invites via PM? J/K
😆 Me Too! (reflections of the AIM days)
Women used to bless in lots of situations. Frankly, they still can – as long as they don’t use consecrated oil and invoke the Priesthood by name. It’s called a “prayer of faith” or a “mother’s blessing” or just about anything else it can be called, and I would love it if we did it more throughout the Church. There is great comfort and power in “the laying on of hands” – regardless of how formal it is and whether or not it’s part of an officially-recognized ordinance of some kind.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.