Washing Feet

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I would agree. Immortal beings will not usually come to administer physical ordinances if a living being has authority, thus the case of Cornelius the angel and Peter. However if the current state of the church doesn't allow, has forgotten, or has given up on certain doctrines and ordinances then I can't imagine why God would remove that blessing. Obviously we know that people receive "the more sure word of prophecy" without this ordinance so its not necessary to receive this ceremony just like being forgiven of sins doesn't necessarily require baptism. However the hands on ritual may not be given by immortal beings if mortal servants hold the authority, but God will not withhold the blessing. 

However all ceremonies must eventually take place. If we are to be Kings and Queens then we must be called up and anointed as such.

I think this ordinance might be different. We do not do it for the dead and there is every indication it does not have to be done in mortality. I suspect it can be done by and to immortals.

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I think this ordinance might be different. We do not do it for the dead and there is every indication it does not have to be done in mortality. I suspect it can be done by and to immortals.

Actually they were and most likely are done for dead, though again very rarely. In the past though many people were given it by proxy.

By 1918, over 14,000 second anointings had been performed for the living and the dead. (Buerger 1983, p. 39). 
In 1941, 15,000 second anointings had been performed for the living, and just over 6,000 for the dead (Buerger 1983, p. 41). 

Apostle (and Salt Lake Temple President) George F. Richards reads a letter to the
assembled First Presidency and Twelve Apostles decrying the lack of second anointings
being performed. The letter states that to date 22,278 second anointings had been
performed for living persons and 10,217 for the dead.-- Aug 18, 1949

Edit: to my understanding it is only the first portion of the "Second anointing" ordinance that is performed for the dead. A second portion is private and performed between man and wife at home. The first portion is a fulfillment of our "first" anointing which was preparatory to our being called up and chosen. If I'm misunderstanding please let me know.

Edited June 7, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[JulieM]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

They didn't hint back then.  They outright said it.

Yes, if we believe Mary anointing Christ was the same as the second anointing then Mary was his wife.  (And probably Martha and Mary Magdalene too).

That’s so interesting.  I personally believe that Christ was married.  I know Brigham Young taught that he was (iirc).

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

Actually they were and most likely are done for dead, though again very rarely. In the past though many people were given it by proxy.

By 1918, over 14,000 second anointings had been performed for the living and the dead. (Buerger 1983, p. 39). 
In 1941, 15,000 second anointings had been performed for the living, and just over 6,000 for the dead (Buerger 1983, p. 41). 

Apostle (and Salt Lake Temple President) George F. Richards reads a letter to the
assembled First Presidency and Twelve Apostles decrying the lack of second anointings
being performed. The letter states that to date 22,278 second anointings had been
performed for living persons and 10,217 for the dead.-- Aug 18, 1949

Edit: to my understanding it is only the first portion of the "Second anointing" ordinance that is performed for the dead. A second portion is private and performed between man and wife at home. The first portion is a fulfillment of our "first" anointing which was preparatory to our being called up and chosen. If I'm misunderstanding please let me know.

True, and I knew that. I meant is not done generally as a matter of course like all the other ordinances.

[SettingDogStar]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

True, and I knew that. I meant is not done generally as a matter of course like all the other ordinances.

Fair enough. However if it is a restored ordinance, can be done for dead, and is what Joseph considered 'the fulness of the priesthood' then, while we aren't penalized for the general authorities withholding it, we will eventually need to receive a similar anointing. After all only a "second anointing" could fulfill the promises of the first. 

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

while we aren't penalized for the general authorities withholding it, we will eventually need to receive a similar anointing. After all only a "second anointing" could fulfill the promises of the first. 

This.

Our endowment is incomplete without it, only half the ordinance.

[The Nehor]

I am bowing out. Feels like we are getting too close to profaning the sacred to me. Sorry.  

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

That’s so interesting.  I personally believe that Christ was married.  I know Brigham Young taught that he was (iirc).

D&C 130:20-21, 131:1-3, D&C 132: 3-5,16-17, and Matthew 3:15 would imply he'd have to be.

There is no exception clause in scripture I know of.

 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am bowing out. Feels like we are getting too close to profaning the sacred to me. Sorry.  

Understandable.  I didn't mean for it to get so close to the line.  But I do feel the related doctrines should be better taught and understood.

Edited June 7, 2019 by JLHPROF

[MiserereNobis]

6 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

However all ceremonies must eventually take place. If we are to be Kings and Queens then we must be called up and anointed as such.

It's so very interesting that a religion whose weekly meetings are so devoid of ceremony has a temple whose rituals (as I intuit from this board) are so meaningful and important.

[SettingDogStar]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Understandable.  I didn't mean for it to get so close to the line.  But I do feel the related doctrines should be better taught and understood.

I agree. If no one talks about it then it will be forgotten. It’s better that we bring it up and speak of it and understand it then the Antis bring it up and twist it. Besides we never divulged any specific material that was not already opened in scripture. I think we’re plenty in the safe side! 

[USU78]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's so very interesting that a religion whose weekly meetings are so devoid of ceremony has a temple whose rituals (as I intuit from this board) are so meaningful and important.

The phenomenon isn't unknown. But for Burton's clandestine observations and reports, what would anybody know about the inner life of the Muslim?

[Metis_LDS]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This.

Our endowment is incomplete without it, only half the ordinance.

I understand what you are saying.  Incomplete as in all those endowed (including some endowed when dead) will not see Celestial Glory for whatever reason.  We are all incomplete until reunited with God.  The endowment stands on it own!  It stands because of what you learn and where you are when you learn it.  So yeah not to upset you but it is not half an ordinance. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by Metis_LDS
grammar

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I understand what you are saying.  Incomplete as in all those endowed (including some endowed when dead) will not see Celestial Glory for whatever reason.  We are all incomplete until reunited with God.  The endowment stands on it own!  It stands because of what you learn and where you are when you learn it.  So yeah not to upset you but it is not half an ordinance. 

I'm not upset.  But when the first ordinance promises a future blessing and the second bestows it, I don't see how we can say we have completed the path with only the promise.

[Metis_LDS]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

I'm not upset.  But when the first ordinance promises a future blessing and the second bestows it, I don't see how we can say we have completed the path with only the promise.

Yes maybe that is the thing now about now calling them Instruction rooms.  Thank you for not being upset as I have just had someone lose it on me in another thread. I even said I was sorry but that was not enough.