- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I agree with Valoel’s “duck” assessment. Second anointing was having your calling & election made sure, meaning that no matter what you did from then on, you were going to the CK. Problem is, what do you do when someone has had 2nd anointing but then commits adultery? This is a real issue that came up. Are they still going to the CK? Obviously, that can’t be right. I have to believe that this notion of calling & election made sure (although alluded to in scripture) is just not quite right doctrinally. I prefer to think (and it feels right to me) that so long as you are in mortality, you are subject to temptation; therefore, you could do something to reverse your spiritual trajectory. Once you get your second anointing, you’ve peaked. Now what?
Second anointings are a bad idea in the same way it’s a bad idea to promote someone too soon – they quit trying to prove themselves and immediately start with the entitlement behaviors – lack of integrity, lack of accountability, and so forth. It’s like in Groundhog Day when Bill Murrary realizes that he can’t be killed. His first reaction is to remove all boundaries on his behavior because there are no consequences. No matter what he does, he will wake up again at 6am, safe and sound.
Endowed women are clothed in the garments of the Priesthood just like men are. There is a HUGE difference between Priesthood power and Priesthood authority to perform ordinances in the temple and Priesthood authority to perform ordinances outside the temple. The last one is the only one that endowed women currently don’t have.
Does anyone know how a woman is given this authority to officiate in temple ordinances in the initiatory? Does the Temple President lay his hands on her head to give her this authority? If so, what verbage does he use to state this? Daisy wrote:Does anyone know how a woman is given this authority to officiate in temple ordinances in the initiatory? Does the Temple President lay his hands on her head to give her this authority? If so, what verbage does he use to state this?
Good question. All I have heard is that she is specifically told she does
nothold the priesthood (before or after? not sure). I’ll have to ask my mom – she used to perform initiatories in the Atlanta Temple. I wish I’d been able to join this conversation sooner. My mission president was a sealer in the temple. He said flat-out that women have held the Melchizedek Priesthood for years, and specifically mentioned the initiatory. He said that women are only allowed to use the priesthood in this capacity. JustMe, thanks for the link to my blog. I think Quinn makes some really interesting arguments about Divine Power. Quinn also quotes Brigham Young as saying that women who have received the Endowment hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. Now it is slightly different in that they aren’t ordained to a specific office, but it is the Melchizedek Priesthood. Quinn quotes Joseph Young (BY’s brother) giving a blessing to # Brigham Young’s daughter:
Quote:“These blessings are yours, the blessings and power according to the Holy Melchi[z]edek Priesthood you received in your Endowments, and you shall have them.”
Lavina Fielding Anderson wrote a wonderful article about women blessing other women via the laying on of hands. Apparently it was a practice that happened right up through the 1950’s. Check out this link:https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/029-16-25.pdf I can’t say I’m an expert on the 2nd anointing, but I am reading a book on the history of temple worship, so I hope to be up to speed soon. As I understand the 2nd anointing, it is some sort of temple ceremony like the Endowment. It is “super secret.” Those who have received this 2nd anointing are basically told that they are guaranteed to get into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, but they must pay for their own sins instead of relying on Christ’s atonement. I expect Bruce in Montana may be a bigger expert on this than I.
mormonheretic wrote:I wish I’d been able to join this conversation sooner. My mission president was a sealer in the temple. He said flat-out that women have held the Melchizedek Priesthood for years, and specifically mentioned the initiatory. He said that women are only allowed to use the priesthood in this capacity.
I stand corrected.And yes, Bruce in Montana, please enlighten us!
mormonheretic wrote:I can’t say I’m an expert on the 2nd anointing, but I am reading a book on the history of temple worship, so I hope to be up to speed soon. As I understand the 2nd anointing, it is some sort of temple ceremony like the Endowment. It is “super secret.” Those who have received this 2nd anointing are basically told that they are guaranteed to get into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, but they must pay for their own sins instead of relying on Christ’s atonement. I expect Bruce in Montana may be a bigger expert on this than I.
“Mysteries of Godliness” gives details on the 2nd anointing. If you aren’t afraid of “anti” sites, there is a contemporary account of the 2nd annointing on RfM, the account of the 2nd anointing itself is not overtly anti [there is no “fear” of anti sites here, but we have a policy of not linking to sites that are anti-Mormon in nature]. 2nd anointings are occassionally, but rarely administered today. You can be relatively confident that all the Qo12 have received their 2nd annointings. There are two parts of the 2nd anointing. The first part is officiated by a member of the Qo12 and takes place in either the Holy of Holies or in a sealing room that has been dedicated for the purpose in temples that lack a Holy of Holies. The first part involves the washing of feet of the man (to clean from the blood and sins of this generation) and the anointing. Men are ordained kings and priests and given the fullness of the priesthood. With the 2nd anointing, in addition to being guaranteed that you will get into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, you are typically given such blessings as that what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, that you have power over death to live until you no longer wish to do so, and that you are now a God. Women are ordained queens and priestesses. The second part is only between the husband and wife. The wife washes her husband’s feet and then lays her hands on his head and pronounces a blessing as the spirit directs.
@Mister Curie I actually read this description of the 2nd anointing before. I am definitely suspicious of its validity. Does anyone know if there is a shred of reliability in it? I looked hard on the internet for something to confirm this description and as you might imagine not much turned up. There are some vague descriptions that resemble his description, but nothing nearly that specific that I could find.
MC & Eu – I’m not sure whether to believe the account or not either. I’ve seen it before. I suppose my true skepticism lies at the root of the ordinance. I just don’t believe it doctrinally. As outlined in the book Mysteries of Godliness, I understand why it came about. Yet I consider it in the “wishful thinking” camp. It doesn’t strike me as a valid concept, whether it exists or not. Isn’t every ordinance only effective based on your faithfulness? I’ll keep my response to “skeptical” – and ask that we not try to go into specifics about something that others view as extremely sacred and about which we can only speculate. Doing so is much like non-Mormons getting together to talk about the endowment and what they’ve heard it is. I personally am not comfortable with that. hawkgrrrl wrote:MC & Eu – I’m not sure whether to believe the account or not either. I’ve seen it before. I suppose my true skepticism lies at the root of the ordinance. I just don’t believe it doctrinally. As outlined in the book Mysteries of Godliness, I understand why it came about. Yet I consider it in the “wishful thinking” camp. It doesn’t strike me as a valid concept, whether it exists or not. Isn’t every ordinance only effective based on your faithfulness?
Both Quinn and “Mysteries of Godliness” describe essentially the same 2nd annointing ordinances as described, which is similar to the 2nd anointing accounts from journal entries in the early church. I believe there was also a Dialogue article about the 2nd annointing confirming these details. Finally, when I was at BYU my New Testament teacher (who is also on the Church Correlation Committee) taught us about the passage on making your calling and election sure, alluded to the 2nd endowment and testified that they are still performed in the church today. I had stumbled upon the Dialogue article in the BYU library around that same time and emailed her about it. She again testified that they are performed today.
I absolutely believe that it is practiced today in the LDS church. But I’m also with you in that I don’t believe it doctrinally. When you understand the 2nd anointing, so much more of the temple experience makes sense. Of course, as I have previously posted, I view it much as I view Greek or Roman mythology, I can appreciate the myths without believing in them.
Here is the link to a previous thread on how understanding the 2nd annointing clears up some misunderstandings of the modern endowment and D&C 132 (
http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=896http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=896” class=”bbcode_url”> Old-Timer wrote:I’ll keep my response to “skeptical” – and ask that we not try to go into specifics about something that others view as extremely sacred and about which we can only speculate.
Sorry for the “anti” link. Thanks for censoring me. I’ll do better in the future.
Quote:I absolutely believe that it is practiced today in the LDS church.
Not going to dispute this – I think you are probably right. But I’m quite sure it’s much more judiciously doled out than originally (as described in Mysteries of Godliness). Also, my guess is that it is still to some extent based on continued faithfulness which wasn’t delineated as being contingent in Mysteries of Godliness. That seems like a major gap. I also have some doubts about the authenticity of the person’s account of his own 2nd anointing because there is information out there and one could reconstruct a fictional account with convincing detail. I really have a hard time believing that someone who had this ordinance would end up on post- or ex-Mormon boards. I’d be very surprised if the median age on such an ordinance were any lower than about 70.
Ray’s right, though – that’s all pointless speculation. It would really be cool to be able to decide when you want to die, though. But maybe you can do that through sheer spiritual enlightenment and good health, ordinances notwithstanding. It sounds like something you would think the Dali Lama could do.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:
Ray’s right, though – that’s all pointless speculation. It would really be cool to be able to decide when you want to die, though. But maybe you can do that through sheer spiritual enlightenment and good health, ordinances notwithstanding. It sounds like something you would think the Dali Lama could do.At any rate, it doesn’t appear that it was very helpful in keeping JS or others alive that had received their 2nd anointing.
Quote:At any rate, it doesn’t appear that it was very helpful in keeping JS or others alive that had received their 2nd anointing.
I would have to go back and check, but I got the notion that the second anointing was introduced after JS, under BY’s era. Further reason I consider it “wishful thinking” more than doctrine. But I’m not sure I have the dates right on that. I read that book about a year ago.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.