Please read our Posting Guidelines.
Believing spouse? Need to vent? Want additional perspectives? Click here.

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   View new postsView new posts   ChatChat   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Second Annointing
» Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    New Order Mormon Forum Index -> Gospel Doctrine and Philosophical Discourse
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
canadiancynic



Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 178

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entirely plausible... wow. I'm kind of speechless. I was aware peripherally of this being done (we had a really wacky fireside when I was in high school, in which the local deep doctrine guy gave a long, drawn out and very obscure talk on the second anointing)

LDS mormon.com confirms the details he puts in there. I'm still skeptical because this is the internet, but we'll see if he continues to say plausible things.

Mike M. please keep following this, I'd love to see what 'anointed one' says next on RFM.

If this is true, what do you think about the ..could we say viral? way in which this is being spread, IE by recommendations? Is it possible that this is some kind of retrenchment, trying to tie prominent members tighter to the church?

Here's a few links, Dialogue that I came across looking at things.

Buerger's "The Second Anointing in LDS Theology and Practice" Dialogue 16(1) 1983 P. 10

Buegers "The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony"
Dialogue 34 (1/2) 2001 P 75

A History of Dialoguge (starts on pg 19 where their talking about publishing Buergers first article and the controversy caused)
http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=29817&CISOSHOW=29637&REC=4
http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=18347&CISOSHOW=18194&REC=3
_________________
As man is, so is his God
And thus is God, oft strangely odd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lincoln
Rock On


Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 1497

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember discussing the topic of having our calling and election made sure, when I was a youth. We discussed it on our missions as well and concluded that Jesus would be the one who performed the ordinance. It's so telling to find out that its not Jesus, it's a bunch of guys who nominate one another for salvation. That really kind of blows my mind. Like someone said previously, that really cuts against the grain of what the gospel teaches us. I always thought that God would be my judge, when I was TBM, and that He would reward me for my righteousness or punish me for my disobedience. But after reading this material, and all the links about this secret ordinance, it seems that men have taken it upon themselves to award salvation to new nominees in the church. Very strange. In this ordinance, it appears that Mormonism takes God right out of the equation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve-M



Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 551

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What blows my mind is that (if the RFM account is accurate), this ordinance is being administered to far more people than I imagined (I may know several people who have received it!), and yet, in spite of the alleged scope of second anointing administrations, the vast majority of members do not even know that it exists, much less what it consists of. It really hearkens back to Joseph's Quorum of the Anointed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dathon
%$#* waterspout!


Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 12810
Location: Here

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve-M wrote:
What blows my mind is that (if the RFM account is accurate), this ordinance is being administered to far more people than I imagined (I may know several people who have received it!), and yet, in spite of the alleged scope of second anointing administrations, the vast majority of members do not even know that it exists, much less what it consists of. It really hearkens back to Joseph's Quorum of the Anointed.


I heard talk of the second anointing among adults in my ward when I was in elementary school. I suspect it may be one of those things that some consider more sacred than secret, but it's hard to tell. I'd say the comment I bolded includes a caveat. I would take any estimates of such things from RfM with a grain of salt. The stories probably have some basis, but I'd bet there's a great deal of exaggeration / hyperbole. Talk is cheap imho. I feel that there have been a good many unsubstantiated rumors started or promoted at RfM, including some only tangentially related to Mormonism (i.e. PSI).

I doubt that anyone knows how many, if any people have recently participated in the ritual. Of all the things to worry about as a middle path person, that's pretty low in the priority list imho.
_________________
"If God exists and His/Her best efforts for our happiness can be that easily thwarted by idiot humans, I am inclined to feel sympathetic at the frustration God would feel." --llave de látigo de Clay


Last edited by Dathon on Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
canadiancynic



Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 178

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, I just had something come to mind that just weirded me out.

Who gets the 'second anointing'? More importantly, has the ceremony been translated? Does it happen ANYWHERE outside of the US, say Utah, Idaho, Arizona, and possibly DC... maybe Cardston/Toronto on the outside.

I'm wondering because this is looking more and more to me like the secret something that the Mormon Establishment can offer. Since the temple is an open secret, they make that available to everyone, but only those in their club get the extra special executive washroom key to heaven. "anointed one" on RfM mentioned a recommendation procedure for other couples.

Conspiracy theories aside...Is this one of those Council of Fifty/Danite/Skull and Bones/Masonic Lodge clubs for the elite? Gives you a special handshake, extra bidding rights on church contracts and 50% off at BYU...lol
_________________
As man is, so is his God
And thus is God, oft strangely odd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Schultz
In a Conundrum...


Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 395
Location: Right in the heart of it.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Secrets bind. The Masons knew this, JS knew it as well.

Within the Mormon community the temple ceremony has become pedestrian--everybody is endowed. 'Within' the community there is no secret. To bind the 'core' we need another layer. Enter the second anointing.

I believe this is similar to Masonry adding additional degrees. You need to feed the 'lifers' a steady diet of exclusivity or they get bored.
_________________
Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything devine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of devine things.
-- Hippocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve-M



Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 551

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dathon wrote:
Steve-M wrote:
What blows my mind is that (if the RFM account is accurate), this ordinance is being administered to far more people than I imagined (I may know several people who have received it!), and yet, in spite of the alleged scope of second anointing administrations, the vast majority of members do not even know that it exists, much less what it consists of. It really hearkens back to Joseph's Quorum of the Anointed.


I heard talk of the second anointing among adults in my ward when I was in elementary school. I suspect it may be one of those things that some consider more sacred than secret, but it's hard to tell. I'd say the comment I bolded includes a caveat. I would take any estimates of such things from RfM with a grain of salt. Talk is cheap and imho there have been a good many unsubstantiated rumors started or promoted there, including some only tangentially related to Mormonism (i.e. PSI).

I doubt that anyone knows how many, if any people have recently participated in the ritual. Of all the things to worry about as a middle path person, that's pretty low in the priority list imho.


I agree. As fun as it is to speculate about this topic, and as interested as I would be to know how second anointings work in the modern church, it's probably not a very pressing concern for many middle path Mormons. And in any case, such a sensational story warrants a high degree of skepticism, especially when it comes from RFM.

That having been said, the account doesn't strike me as being obviously fabricated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
A New Name
Toes on the Nose


Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 803

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

According to Buerger, the 2nd Anointing was last discontinued in the 1940’s (I’m trying to remember, since I don’t have the book in front of me) when a SP in Idaho told his whole stake that he had just gotten his 2nd anointing. The “brethren” had a fit, and the Prophet scaled way back, to almost none.

That being the case, maybe this “leak” of the 2nd anointing will again cause it to go back to nothing for several generations. Which if that is the case, then can it really be a saving ordinance if it is discontinued because people know about it?

A New Name
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike Michaels
Mini-Renaissance Man


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 1874
Location: Living on a dead end street in Lake Wobegon

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Latterday Skeptic wrote:

I'd love to get that free sin card, though.


Don't sweat it. I'll let you borrow mine. Smile
_________________
"I left the woods for as good a reason as I went there. Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live and could not spare any more time for that one."

Thoreau
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike Michaels
Mini-Renaissance Man


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 1874
Location: Living on a dead end street in Lake Wobegon

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:51 am    Post subject: ... Reply with quote

Mike Michaels wrote:
The wife blessing the husband is the most mind-blowing tidbit to me... and we know enough about early Mormon history to know this was common so it's not unlikely that it survived into the Second Annointing. It would make the secrecy justified too. In the post-ERA era if all LDS women knew that they could give their husband a blessing in the temple then the logical question would be "why don't women have the priesthood?".


Is nobody really intrigued by this facet of the account (which is supported by the outline of the ordinance provided in the other link)?

The sinning for free card I can understand. You wouldn't want that interpretation of the ordinance to get out or else EVERYONE would want one just like LatterDaySkeptic.

But institutionalized participation of women in an ordinance! That's phenomenal even if it is only "giving a blessing". I would have thought that would have generated more commentary.

FWIW I agree with Dathon that if you're trying to maintain the middle way this account is of no practical use... but by the same measure so would reading Brody, Compton, Arbanes, Bagely, Brooks, and every other respected author. I think it pays to be skeptical but one can also too skeptical. This account walks that fine balance in a manner which I think contributes to our understanding of Mormonism in the same way as any of those respected books. Granted, it's not a ton of information and it has an author's slant, but it's all we've got to go on with precious few other sources.
_________________
"I left the woods for as good a reason as I went there. Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live and could not spare any more time for that one."

Thoreau
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve-M



Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 551

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike Michaels wrote:
But institutionalized participation of women in an ordinance! That's phenomenal even if it is only "giving a blessing". I would have thought that would have generated more commentary.


Well, women already administer washings and anointings in LDS temples. In light of this fact (as anomalous as it may be in modern Mormonism), perhaps it isn't surprising that they would also participate in an ordinance during the second anointing.

Okay, I think I've commented way too much on this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GypsyD



Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 1497
Location: Arizona's White Mountains!

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm gonna have to say that it's dang hard finding the "middle" when the edges are so freakin' fuzzy.

This is my biggest beef. Stuff that I taught was DOCTRINE, capital D, no wavering, made us peculiar and restorative-turns out to not be so. Stuff that I thought was cultural, turns out to be WAY more in focus than doctrine and well-any of you who can find the middle in that-more power to ya.

I couldn't (didn't) do it. Clearly.

And I'm with Mike. The authority of women to "bless" was one of the things that made the temple meaningful to me. But you can't talk about it outside the temple. No one prepares you before hand to have a woman lay hands on your head and annoint you. I would have LOVED to have know that before hand, and I would have loved to have been able to discuss the doctrinal wonder of that with anyone outside the temple. I didn't have a single bishop in 23 years who was willing to talk to me (even in the temple) about women and priesthood. And I wasn't even a so-called feminist. I was a mother in Zion who desperately wanted to know that my study, my prayers, my seeking, my mothering were all valid in terms of the structure of the kingdom. My heart told me they were-as did some deeply spiritual experiences), but the system wouldn't, couldn't, didn't acknowledge my divine feminine in any way outside the context of the "real" priesthood.

So, yeah. If word gets out that women are already receiving those "higher" blessings....oh! and another thing. How do these women who are receiving this second annointing keep it from the other Sisters with whom they interact. How do you as a woman with further light and knowledge not reach out with that to another sister who is struggling and fearing that they will never be acceptable to Heavenly Father. I could NOT do it.

Guess that's why I didn't get my calling and election made sure. Clearly.
_________________
"...gonna put my tender heart in a blender..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dathon
%$#* waterspout!


Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 12810
Location: Here

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:15 am    Post subject: Re: ... Reply with quote

Mike Michaels wrote:
Mike Michaels wrote:
The wife blessing the husband is the most mind-blowing tidbit to me... and we know enough about early Mormon history to know this was common so it's not unlikely that it survived into the Second Annointing. It would make the secrecy justified too. In the post-ERA era if all LDS women knew that they could give their husband a blessing in the temple then the logical question would be "why don't women have the priesthood?".


Is nobody really intrigued by this facet of the account (which is supported by the outline of the ordinance provided in the other link)?

The sinning for free card I can understand. You wouldn't want that interpretation of the ordinance to get out or else EVERYONE would want one just like LatterDaySkeptic.

But institutionalized participation of women in an ordinance! That's phenomenal even if it is only "giving a blessing". I would have thought that would have generated more commentary.

FWIW I agree with Dathon that if you're trying to maintain the middle way this account is of no practical use... but by the same measure so would reading Brody, Compton, Arbanes, Bagely, Brooks, and every other respected author. I think it pays to be skeptical but one can also too skeptical. This account walks that fine balance in a manner which I think contributes to our understanding of Mormonism in the same way as any of those respected books. Granted, it's not a ton of information and it has an author's slant, but it's all we've got to go on with precious few other sources.


I've long taken for granted that since women officiate in the temple in some rituals, and from some of the verbiage, that women do in fact hold either priesthood authority or some indistinguishable analog. They're just not encouraged to exercise that authority in the normal course of liturgical life outside the temple.

FWIW I think you've over extended my intended meaning that the second anointing doesn't matter much for some of us. Not only do I not believe that it's all that common, I don't believe it is tied to real authority, IOW I see it as a placebo ritual designed to strengthen community bonds and individual fealty to the institutional church. While I regard Abanes' book on Mormonism to be polemic, I don't see Bagley, Brody, Brooks or Compton as being as overtly antagonistic or pandering to anti-Mormon sentiment. I regard them as historians trying to get close to the truth about events in the past of the church. I see a huge difference between Abanes' 'One Nation Under Gods' (which I skimmed and found unnecessarily sensational in its content and tone) and Compton's 'In Sacred Loneliness' which I read and felt was reasonably balanced, respectful and well documented.

I don't doubt the existence of the second anointing or that it may be still be practiced. However, I do not see it as either a dark conspiracy or evil cult practice being hidden from the membership.
_________________
"If God exists and His/Her best efforts for our happiness can be that easily thwarted by idiot humans, I am inclined to feel sympathetic at the frustration God would feel." --llave de látigo de Clay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mamato4



Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 483
Location: BC and NZ

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well it seems to fit in with how my religion professor at Ricks said it was. He said it was a temple ordinance that happened daily in temples around the world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dathon
%$#* waterspout!


Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 12810
Location: Here

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GypsyD wrote:
I'm gonna have to say that it's dang hard finding the "middle" when the edges are so freakin' fuzzy.


LOL! Laughing I cannot contest that concise and insightful statement. You show again that you are a Zen Mistress.

GypsyD wrote:
This is my biggest beef. Stuff that I taught was DOCTRINE, capital D, no wavering, made us peculiar and restorative-turns out to not be so. Stuff that I thought was cultural, turns out to be WAY more in focus than doctrine and well-any of you who can find the middle in that-more power to ya.

I couldn't (didn't) do it. Clearly.

And I'm with Mike. The authority of women to "bless" was one of the things that made the temple meaningful to me. But you can't talk about it outside the temple. No one prepares you before hand to have a woman lay hands on your head and anoint you. I would have LOVED to have know that before hand, and I would have loved to have been able to discuss the doctrinal wonder of that with anyone outside the temple. I didn't have a single bishop in 23 years who was willing to talk to me (even in the temple) about women and priesthood. And I wasn't even a so-called feminist. I was a mother in Zion who desperately wanted to know that my study, my prayers, my seeking, my mothering were all valid in terms of the structure of the kingdom. My heart told me they were-as did some deeply spiritual experiences), but the system wouldn't, couldn't, didn't acknowledge my divine feminine in any way outside the context of the "real" priesthood.

So, yeah. If word gets out that women are already receiving those "higher" blessings....oh! and another thing. How do these women who are receiving this second anointing keep it from the other Sisters with whom they interact. How do you as a woman with further light and knowledge not reach out with that to another sister who is struggling and fearing that they will never be acceptable to Heavenly Father. I could NOT do it.

Guess that's why I didn't get my calling and election made sure. Clearly.


I agree with everything I understand from your post except that last sentence. I think you've found a great calling here, and you are certainly elect as far as I can tell. Wink
_________________
"If God exists and His/Her best efforts for our happiness can be that easily thwarted by idiot humans, I am inclined to feel sympathetic at the frustration God would feel." --llave de látigo de Clay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    New Order Mormon Forum Index -> Gospel Doctrine and Philosophical Discourse All times are GMT - 6 Hours
» Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 2 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group