 |
New Order Mormon
A forum for Mormons in all stages of faith
Please read our Posting Guidelines.
Believing spouse? Need to vent? Want additional perspectives? Click here.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ChristFollower
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 1614
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
One real problem with this is that it's entirely consistent with how polygamy and the endowment were initially conferred. In secret to leaders and their associates. Even if this account is made up, it's entirely believable based on what we know of the history of the ordinance and how the leaders shroud many things in secrecy.
Like many things the church leadership could easily resolve questions like this by telling the truth about how it was initially practiced, and if it's practiced today.
My wife was involved in some of the preparation work when our temple was built, and it does in fact have a small room off of one of the sealing rooms, the "holy of holies", and it has a sink in it. It's behind a locked door. We always wondered what it was for. Now maybe we know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dathon
%$#* waterspout!
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 12805
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: Re: It depends on what you mean by 'polemic' |
|
|
| Mike Michaels wrote: |
I don't recall stating that the SA was a dark conspiracy or an evil cult practice... and neither did the original author. You may very well be correct that it is a placebo ritual... but do you really think that GBH and the Big Fifteen think so? If the SA is a placebo ritual does that mean all rituals are placebos? Once you know you are taking a placebo, does the placebo still have an effect? |
I was unclear. I didn't mean to imply that you were suggesting that SA was either conspiracy or cult practice. I often get the impression at RfM that some posters there are intent on demonizing or vilifying the church leadership and members. I could be wrong, text being flat and tribal defenses being highly reactionary at times. It's arguable under several definitions that the SA can be considered a cult practice, I see no evil intent and no point in holding it up what is sacred to some to ridicule.
| Mike Michaels wrote: |
Through your responses I'm beginning to understand the fundamental issues with the middle way:
a) if something in the church is disturbing (intellectually, emotionally, physically, or spiritually) one has to find a way to frame it such that it is no longer disturbing
b) failing in "a", one then has to assign the disturbing aspect of Mormonism to other sects, if possible, to dilute the impact (misery loves company)
c) failing in "a" and "b" one has to define the disturbing aspect as irrelevant and unimportant to discount any impact it might have
This seems to boil down to the middle way being the role of a junior apologist. No wonder you're on meds man!!! 
I'm not over reacting to either of your responses IMO. Your responses are merely helping me understand your mindset better than I ever have previously. |
An interesting presumption. Not what I think of middle way but you're welcome to your inferences.
| Mike Michaels wrote: |
I have read Arbanes book and I considered it a worthwhile read - polemic or not. It's certainly far less polemic than anything Hugh Nibley wrote. |
We have a fundamental disagreement about the definition of polemic and interpreting the tone of Abanes and Nibley. I don't deny that some of Nibley's writing may have been polemic but imho there's a huge difference between irrational apologetics and a virulent attack that seems to equate 19th century dogma with the people in the modern church. I may have misread Abanes since I didn't read the book carefully.
| Mike Michaels wrote: |
I take all input as data. Like scientific data, some is valid, some is invalid, some is valid useful, some is valid unuseful, etc... In all cases it's up to the individual to interpret the data and come to a useful summary that can be applied meaningfully.
The original post provided source data about a church subject seriously lacking in data. Yes, it could be totally fiction. But there was nothing suggesting it was fictional. (Lincoln provided an excellent barometer for comparison.)
|
The original post was from a "hostile witness" and we have no way of knowing whether the data was actually primary or not. Though I'm willing to believe it very well may have been. Clearly if it was that person's experience, it didn't end up increasing his commitment to the church. Stuff posted on a board without corroborating documentation is hearsay. That doesn't make it not true, but it does make it technically inadmissible in a court. This isn't a court but the statement may be reasonably disputed as hearsay without necessarily calling the action junior apologetics. I didn't say it was fictional only that I would take it with a grain of salt.
| Mike Michaels wrote: | The sinning "get out of jail free" card may be real or a matter of the author's personal interpretation and state of mind. This and most other content of the SA post is fluff IMO.
My key takeaway from the post is that there is an official LDS temple ordinance selectively given in which a woman gives her husband a blessing in the temple and that ordinance is being performed in the current era. I could say that to my TBM wife, probably every single person in her ward including her bishop, and almost every other LDS person I've known in my entire life and they'd all call me crazy. Yet, it would be factually true. That's no less important than any other historical factoid (JS polygamy/polandry, MMM, Adam God, etc...) used and discussed on this site in relation to disaffection. |
I suspect that you are correct that the ordinance/ritual may still be practiced. I know several believing and skeptical members who I doubt would call you crazy. If your wife's ward is filled with that percentage of compartmentalizing literalists, you have my deepest sympathy. Actually you've had my empathy and sympathy for a good while anyway. I believe I understand at least somewhat. Perils of being an argumentative passionate moderate. Devout members see me as an apostate or heretic and threat. Some post mormons see me as a bleeding heart apologist with a cephalorectal disorder. It's OK, I'm used to it.
The foot is healing, I'm not taking that much vicodin lately (compared to House anyway). It's not the drugs (the drugs help me think better! ), it's the bleeding heart and wish to treat believers and what they hold dear with some dignity and respect too.
| Mike Michaels wrote: |
[switching avatar back to personal photo] I love you man.  |
Right back at you guy. It's fun having you here. I don't feel our disagreement impinges on friendship and trust. You said yourself that you're a master baiter. I just took the bait and you played the line. Well met. 
_________________
"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 Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Figaro
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 254
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jane Eyre wrote: | One thing that struck me about this second anointing thing is that the main prerequisite for receiving it is loyalty to the church. One would assume that if you are given the gift of godhood it is because you have qualified through righteousness- logic would say this means that you have sanctified yourself to the point that your heart is pure, your character is just like Jesus Christ. You have demonstrated incredible meekness, humility, and charity, even if you have not yet perfected those attributes. Yet these most important attributes are mostly a condition of the heart and are not often seen in outward appearances.
But loyalty to the church has been chosen as the standard by which godhood is bestowed. Truly incredible. |
Brilliant observation, Jane Eyre. Loyalty to the Church really is the highest virtue, isn't it? 
_________________
Fig and Silly's Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dathon
%$#* waterspout!
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 12805
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Figaro wrote: | | Jane Eyre wrote: | One thing that struck me about this second anointing thing is that the main prerequisite for receiving it is loyalty to the church. One would assume that if you are given the gift of godhood it is because you have qualified through righteousness- logic would say this means that you have sanctified yourself to the point that your heart is pure, your character is just like Jesus Christ. You have demonstrated incredible meekness, humility, and charity, even if you have not yet perfected those attributes. Yet these most important attributes are mostly a condition of the heart and are not often seen in outward appearances.
But loyalty to the church has been chosen as the standard by which godhood is bestowed. Truly incredible. |
Brilliant observation, Jane Eyre. Loyalty to the Church really is the highest virtue, isn't it? |
Blind loyalty and obedience to any leader, mass movement or system is flat out dangerous. IMHO the highest loyalty should be to discerning truth, then to one's family.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Archimedes
Bull Black Nova
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1234
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:58 am Post subject: Sorry, but I think it's bogus. |
|
|
Wow, this is an extremely interesting thread. Thanks for posting the link - I rarely visit RfM any more and would have missed all the fun without this thread.
I have GOT to say, however, that something about this whole thing just does not ring true with me. There have been a few skeptics on RfM as well, but for the most part people have accepted "Anointed One's" story without question. As has been the case here, with a few exceptions.
Somebody intent on harming the church could very easily have fabricated this story. With a little local knowledge about the presence of Elders Hillam and Ballard in that part of England at the time, and some historical research regarding the SA, this story could readily have been cooked up out of whole cloth.
One red flag for me is the fact that so much information is presented regarding the alleged ordinance(s) that were performed, but very little information is given regarding "Anointed One's" struggle with his faith. It seems backward to me. And contrived. Very little introductory discussion and then - BAM - "I received the Second Anointing and then Apostasized!"
The poster's explanation of his apostasy does not ring true with me, either. Just a few sentences about [after many years of being in the upper echelon of Church heirarchy] finally asking questions regarding the BofM, not receiving satisfactory answers, and again - BAM - apostasy. Please note also that several requests have been made of AO for additional information on RfM, and he has dodged all of them.
I think it's bogus. Feel free to prove me wrong. It's happened before.
_________________
| Padme Amidala wrote: | | So this is how liberty dies: With thunderous applause. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChristFollower
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 1614
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:15 am Post subject: Re: Sorry, but I think it's bogus. |
|
|
| Archimedes wrote: | | The poster's explanation of his apostasy does not ring true with me, either. Just a few sentences about [after many years of being in the upper echelon of Church heirarchy] finally asking questions regarding the BofM, not receiving satisfactory answers, and again - BAM - apostasy. |
Not saying I'm 100% convinced either, but you have to consider Jerrell Chesney's situation also. It has happened.
The person has given all the information necessary for the church leaders to identify him, but he hasn't given his real name so we could identify him. Maybe because he knows this story will circulate around the DAMU but won't bring his ward to his house with clubs and torches, maybe because it's fake. I don't know.
As I mentioned before, though, even if it's not true, it troubles me that it's entirely consistent with what I know to be true. This fact I think communicates a lot about how we perceive the church and how it operates. The leaders have always been better than the rest of us. Perks always flow to the top. The church has always been secretive and deceptive in public, practicing one thing in public while saying something completely different to the rank and file and to the public. Also, the ritual he mentions is consistent with what I have heard about this ordinance in the past. Even if not true on its own, it brings together a lot of undisputed (in my mind, anyway) facts. It just makes me wonder again why I have given to much of my heart and treasure to an organization like this. "Truth Restored"? I don't know that we teach that anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dathon
%$#* waterspout!
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 12805
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:06 am Post subject: Re: Sorry, but I think it's bogus. |
|
|
| ChristFollower wrote: | | It just makes me wonder again why I have given to much of my heart and treasure to an organization like this. "Truth Restored"? I don't know that we teach that anymore. |
I hear you.
Most of gave our hearts, minds, time and talents to some degree because we believed in something. It may have been that truth had been restored, that God still speaks to prophets, that the members of the community we knew inspired us, or any of many other reasons. It's painful to go from feeling like an integral member of a loving community to feeling like a replaceable employee and having been misled by people we trusted.
How might Jesus respond to leaders who keep believing faithful sacrificing followers in the dark? Would it be like the money changers in the temple or like one of the sinners he forgave?
_________________
"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 Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Melodica
Korihor's my hero
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 3214
Location: holding Korihor's hand, So. Cal.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Re: Sorry, but I think it's bogus. |
|
|
| Dathon wrote: | | How might Jesus respond to leaders who keep believing faithful sacrificing followers in the dark? Would it be like the money changers in the temple or like one of the sinners he forgave? |
I think this is a very good question. I think that Jesus would forgive the people who were honestly trying to do his work. If in the course of trying to do this work they furthered the agenda of a corporate church, as long as their intent was still to do God's will, I still think they would be forgiven.
I think that the people who know about falsehoods the church is telling, who are in the higher echelons of the church, who have helped to cover up the lies, those people I think Jesus would treat as he treated the moneychangers in the temple.
IMO it all boils down to intent. And yes, I know the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and I think its wrong.
Mel
_________________
To succeed... you need to find something to hold on to, something to motivate you, something to inspire you.
--Tony Dorsett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SillyNut
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 413
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe that the whole thing boils down to a giant country club/good ol' boys club.
I wonder if one day I will be able to shed enough of my Mormonism to be able to handle Jesus again. The whole "we're all right or we're all wrong" really has done a number on me.
_________________
Fig and Silly's Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Archimedes
Bull Black Nova
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1234
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:30 am Post subject: Re: Sorry, but I think it's bogus. |
|
|
| ChristFollower wrote: | | ...Also, the ritual he mentions is consistent with what I have heard about this ordinance in the past. Even if not true on its own, it brings together a lot of undisputed (in my mind, anyway) facts. It just makes me wonder again why I have given to much of my heart and treasure to an organization like this. |
I understand what you're saying. But just because a story sounds like it should be true, or could be true, doesn't make it so. I think Paul Dunn learned that lesson the hard way.
All I'm sayin' is... If you will swallow a story like the Anointed One's without any verification, then... I have a stack of gold plates I'd like to sell you.
_________________
| Padme Amidala wrote: | | So this is how liberty dies: With thunderous applause. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dathon
%$#* waterspout!
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 12805
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SillyNut wrote: | I can't believe that the whole thing boils down to a giant country club/good ol' boys club.
I wonder if one day I will be able to shed enough of my Mormonism to be able to handle Jesus again. The whole "we're all right or we're all wrong" really has done a number on me. |
Personally I think to frame it as a giant country club for good old boys is overly simplistic and reactionary. It can boil down to any number of things if that's what we've come to expect.
OTOH I do understand the feeling quite well. That impression might pass or it might last. I don't excuse anyone who is or was knowingly complicit but there are also a lot of innocent and hard working people in that so-called country club for good old boys. Just sayin'.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mike Michaels
Mini-Renaissance Man
Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 1872
Location: Living on a dead end street in Lake Wobegon
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: Re: It depends on what you mean by 'polemic' |
|
|
| Dathon wrote: | | I don't feel our disagreement impinges on friendship and trust. You said yourself that you're a master baiter. I just took the bait and you played the line. Well met. |
Hey, it's the only kind of fishing I enjoy... which makes me an outcast in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.
Right back at you.
FWIW DW had her VTs over last night and we sat around the kitchen island. I refrained from posing any questions quizzing their knowledge of the SA. I may feel comfortable baiting you but I know whose bed I sleep in.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mike Michaels
Mini-Renaissance Man
Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 1872
Location: Living on a dead end street in Lake Wobegon
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject: Re: Sorry, but I think it's bogus. |
|
|
| Archimedes wrote: | | I rarely visit RfM any more and would have missed all the fun without this thread. |
Surfing RfM has a lot in common with panning for gold or wading through muck.
Whether AO's post is fact or fiction, it made me recognize the significance of the item in bold below:
| Outline of Second Annointing wrote: |
III. THE ORDINANCE OF SECOND ANOINTINGS -- Part Two
"The Washing of The Feet", Wife to Husband
1. This ordinance is performed in the couple's home.
2. The husband dedicates the home, and a room in which they will perform the ordinance.
3. The ordinance follows the pattern of when Mary anointed Jesus, in Matthew 12. What the wife does here is in memorial of what Mary did.
4. The wife washes the body of her husband (similar to initiatory).
5. The wife anoints the body of her husband (similar to initiatory).
6. The ordinance prepares the husband for burial, and in this way she lays claim upon him in the resurrection.
7. Having authority, she can pronounce whatever blessings she feels appropriate upon her husband in this ordinance, as guided by the spirit.8. This ordinance is not performed in behalf of the dead.
|
For some reason this last item jumped out at me as an incredibly significant facet of history and belief in the Mormon faith.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mike Michaels
Mini-Renaissance Man
Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 1872
Location: Living on a dead end street in Lake Wobegon
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: Re: Sorry, but I think it's bogus. |
|
|
| ChristFollower wrote: | | It just makes me wonder again why I have given to much of my heart and treasure to an organization like this. |
Risking a response to a rhetorical question...
While reading Dathon's original reaction and giving my response additional thought I think the answer to your question is: We all create, to some degree, a false reality to inhabit.
I'm not the philosopher here and that concept (false reality) has probably had numerous tomes written on it. Someone here could probably illuminate us peons to the academic meaning.
Regardless, it's clear that we all bend the universe to some degree to make it fit us individually. At one point we were all willing to tie the universe into gravity sucking black hole knots if necessary to make Mormonism fit. We just aren't willing to do that to the same degree anymore. Or at least not for the Church... for our families, yes, but not for the Church.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Archimedes
Bull Black Nova
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1234
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike Michaels wrote: | Surfing RfM has a lot in common with panning for gold or wading through muck.
|
Great analogy. For me, the signal-to-noise ratio just got so low it wasn't worth the effort of all that panning. Far easier to enjoy the nuggets others have found.
I was struck, too, by the part where the wife pronounces a blessing on her husband's head. This really does hark back to the women of the early church, many of whom I admire more than their male counterparts. Emma, Zina, Eliza, etc. thought nothing of laying on hands and blessing each other, or others in need.
It seems very odd to me indeed that women exercising the priesthood in that manner was acceptable in the 1800's, a time when women hadn't the right to vote, etc., but is not practiced in our more enlightened world today. Somebody should tell the boys in the COB about the ills of regression. At the very least, it's not good for the Public Image.
_________________
| Padme Amidala wrote: | | So this is how liberty dies: With thunderous applause. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
View new posts
Chat
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
