Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Carborendum

Washing Feet

Recommended Posts

Yes in some countries showing the sole of your foot (even with a shoe on) is a really bad thing to be avoided.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I love the washing of the feet passage; and it is to this approach to life and others that I aspire (but am still far from).

Share this post


Link to post

This was an sacred saving ordinance that he was performing on the apostles.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Durangout said:

This was an sacred saving ordinance that he was performing on the apostles.

The ordinance of the washing of feet was then introduced by the Lord as the means whereby someone could be rendered “clean from the blood of this generation” (D&C 88:138-141),  it’s not about customs of the day or demonstrating Christ’s humility , etc...that is usually used as an explanation when these passages are discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Durangout said:

This was an sacred saving ordinance that he was performing on the apostles.

It’s part of the 2nd anointing ordinance isn’t it?  (I remember reading that iirc).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It’s part of the 2nd anointing ordinance isn’t it?  (I remember reading that iirc).

Yes. I believe it also happens between the president and Apostles of the Church:
Daniel H. Ludlow said:
"This ordinance of the gospel has been restored in this dispensation. When the School of the Prophets was organized, the Lord indicated that the members should “be received by the ordinance of the washing of feet, for unto this end [that ye might be clean from the blood of this generation] was the ordinance of the washing of feet instituted.” (D&C 88:139.) The ordinance of washing of the feet has now been incorporated in the ordinances that are revealed to be administered in the Lord’s house. ((Daniel H. Ludlow, Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, vol. 2, 322-323.))

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It’s part of the 2nd anointing ordinance isn’t it?  (I remember reading that iirc).

Correct.  As is the anointing of Christ by Mary, his wife.

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Yes. I believe it also happens between the president and Apostles of the Church:
Daniel H. Ludlow said:
"This ordinance of the gospel has been restored in this dispensation. When the School of the Prophets was organized, the Lord indicated that the members should “be received by the ordinance of the washing of feet, for unto this end [that ye might be clean from the blood of this generation] was the ordinance of the washing of feet instituted.” (D&C 88:139.) The ordinance of washing of the feet has now been incorporated in the ordinances that are revealed to be administered in the Lord’s house. ((Daniel H. Ludlow, Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, vol. 2, 322-323.))

The first step of three in that ordinance.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

Yes in some countries showing the sole of your foot (even with a shoe on) is a really bad thing to be avoided.

We got a briefing on this in the LTM, as well as crossing legs girl style in order to avoid showing soles of shoes. And that was in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Correct.  As is the anointing of Christ by Mary, his wife.

Is there evidence of this (wives anointing their husbands) in modern day second anointings? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Durangout said:

The ordinance of the washing of feet was then introduced by the Lord as the means whereby someone could be rendered “clean from the blood of this generation” (D&C 88:138-141),  it’s not about customs of the day or demonstrating Christ’s humility , etc...that is usually used as an explanation when these passages are discussed.

While I agree that it was an ordinance, ordinances are not without symbolism.  There is no reason to suggest that it is not about demonstrating the symbolism of Christ's humility and willingness to descend below all things to purify the world.  I think the symbolism very much has ties to the customs of the day.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is there evidence of this (wives anointing their husbands) in modern day second anointings? 

Yes, many of them, if by modern you mean this dispensation.

If you mean the past 50 years the Church  today doesn't  even acknowledge the ordinance is practiced.

Edited by JLHPROF

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, many of them, if by modern you mean this dispensation.

Yes, that is what I meant. 

Interesting.  I was not aware of that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

It is an LDS and Roman Catholic ordinance:

Quote

Washing of feet

An ordinance following the pattern set by Jesus in the New Testament, symbolizing unity and bestowing purification and spiritual power. At the first meeting of the School of the Prophets in January 1833, JS washed the feet of the elders present and pronounced them “clean from the blood of this generation.” In fall 1835, JS directed church leaders to prepare for a solemn assembly in the House of the Lord in Kirtland, Ohio, where they would be ritually purified through the washing of feet prior to an endowment of power. A ritual washing of feet was given to church leaders and official members in the House of the Lord beginning on 29 March 1836 and finishing at the solemn assembly on 30 March. At the 6 April 1837 solemn assembly, attendees who had not been present at the 1836 assembly received washings of feet and blessings.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/washing-of-feet 

The Pope does this from time to time.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Pope does this from time to time.

Every bishop, including the Pope, does this each year as part of the Maundy Thursday (Thursday before Good Friday) liturgy. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, that is what I meant. 

Interesting.  I was not aware of that. 

It's in quite a few of the journals, though its usually rough summaries or mentions. Many accounts are also located in the Nauvoo Temple "Book of Anointings."

A good example would be when Heber C. Kimball recorded;

April the first day 1844 I Heber C Kimball received the washing of my feet, and was 
annointed by my wife Vilate fore my burial, that is my feet head Stomach. Even as Mary did Jesus, 
that She mite have a claim on him in the Resurrection in the City of Nauvoo.

(Then in Vilates habdwriting)

I Vilate Kimball do hereby certify that on the first day of April 1844 I attended to washing 
and anointing the head Stomach and feet of my dear companion Heber C Kimball, that I may 
have claim upon him in the morning of the first resurrection. Vilate Kimball (Journal of Heber C. Kimball, "Book 91", CHO; April 1, 1844; Typed w/o sic. )

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, many of them, if by modern you mean this dispensation.

If you mean the past 50 years the Church  today doesn't  even acknowledge the ordinance is practiced.

Well, there is evidence that second annointings have been done in the last 50 years. Tom Phillips, now not a member, described it in an interview on Mormon Stories. 

Someone made a comment to the podcast that is pretty interesting:

“Joseph Smith introduced the second anointing the same day, September 28, 1843, that women were introduced to the endowment….nineteen men and seventeen women received their second anointing in the short span of nine months before Smith’s death. He introduced it to trusted followers as the ‘fulness of the priesthood,’ saying it fulfilled the promise of the first anointing in confirming their appointments as kings and priests, queens and priestesses in the next life. The second anointing was said to be the ‘crowning ordinance’ of the Restoration, a ritual that ‘seal[ed] their exaltation upon them while they are yet in this life.’

“After Smith’s death, Brigham Young increased the number of second anointings and opened the ordinance to plural wives. Before the temple closed in February 1846, a total of 603 second anointings had been performed, nine of which were by proxy for the dead. Then the ritual was curtailed for over three decades until 694 anointings were ultimately performed in the Endowment House before its closure in 1889.

“In 1884, President John Taylor let it be known that he alone would ‘designate the parties who should receive these ordinances.’ He allowed recommendations from families for deceased ancestors but not for the living. Understandably, those who acted as proxies for the dead had to have already received the ordinance themselves.

“President Taylor’s successor, Wilford Woodruff, continued to discourage individuals from requesting the ordinance, for themselves or for their ‘faithful aged,’ preferring ‘that their names should be presented by their bishop and stake president,’ he wrote. In 1901 bishops were told not to make recommendations, reserving the responsibility to stake presidents. President Lorenzo Snow decided that only those who had gathered to Utah were worthy to receive the highest ordinance—not only among the living, but also among the dead unless they had desired to immigrate but had been prevented from doing so.

“In 1926 stake presidents were asked to stop recommending individuals, as the Church presidency now reserved the right to do so to members of the Quorum of the Twelve. Because most members were not personally known to the apostles, recommendations were usually made when members of the hierarchy visited stakes and heard about individuals from stake presidents.

“In time, [George F.] Richards would become so distraught that the ordinance had fallen into disuse, he wrote the First Presidency and Twelve in 1949 that he could not bring himself ‘to feel that the Lord is pleased with us in
neglecting such an important and sacred endowment.’ Up to that time, 32,901 second anointings had been performed throughout the Church, but during the last twelve years, Richards pointed out, there had been only eight.

“The second anointing continues to be performed on a limited basis. In 1966, the First Presidency ‘went over a list of the Brethren of the General Authorities who have not had their second anointings.’ David O. McKay asked Joseph Fielding Smith ‘to officiate at these ordinances in behalf of these Brethren.’ David Buerger interviewed three temple presidents who confirmed that the ordinance is still being performed, although it remains shrouded in secrecy. And as Buerger concluded, ‘the current official policy initiated by Heber J. Grant suggests that Church authorities now feel that the second anointing is not required for exaltation.’”

(2011-03-22). The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History (Kindle Locations 653-663). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, many of them, if by modern you mean this dispensation.

If you mean the past 50 years the Church  today doesn't  even acknowledge the ordinance is practiced.

 

This is the only correlated material that I know of where it is mentioned by name:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel/chapter-19?lang=eng

 

At my son's baptism he wanted this verse of the Spirit of God sung which has reference to the washing of feet in Kirtland temple sung at it's dedication.

Quote

We'll wash and be washed, and with oil be anointed,
Withal not omitting the washing of feet;
For he that receiveth his PENNY appointed,
Must surely be clean at the harvest of wheat.
We'll sing and we'll shout with the armies of heaven;
Hosanna, Hosanna to God and the Lamb!
Let glory to them in the highest be given,
Henceforth and forever, amen and amen.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

David Buerger interviewed three temple presidents who confirmed that the ordinance is still being performed, although it remains shrouded in secrecy. And as Buerger concluded, ‘the current official policy initiated by Heber J. Grant suggests that Church authorities now feel that the second anointing is not required for exaltation.’”

Which is very unfortunate. Of course God will make all alright in the end, but it's still unfortunate how secretive and uncommon it has become. If it is truly for bestowing the 'fulness of the priesthood' or at least the ordinances for signaling to God that such is worthy, then we ought to be giving it out to as many as people can be found worthy of it. Of course the "standards" would be much more intense but I agree with George F Richards that the Lord is displeased with the infrequent use of this ordinances. If God gave us this ability, why have we mostly abandoned it? and why the secretive nature? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:

Which is very unfortunate. Of course God will make all alright in the end, but it's still unfortunate how secretive and uncommon it has become. If it is truly for bestowing the 'fulness of the priesthood' or at least the ordinances for signaling to God that such is worthy, then we ought to be giving it out to as many as people can be found worthy of it. Of course the "standards" would be much more intense but I agree with George F Richards that the Lord is displeased with the infrequent use of this ordinances. If God gave us this ability, why have we mostly abandoned it? and why the secretive nature? 

According to an older guy I knew when I was younger they took the ability to recommend people from Stake presidents because too many people could not keep their mouths shut.

If it were more generally known I could see people “campaigning” to get it like I have seen people campaign to be made a High Priest.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

According to an older guy I knew when I was younger they took the ability to recommend people from Stake presidents because too many people could not keep their mouths shut.

If it were more generally known I could see people “campaigning” to get it like I have seen people campaign to be made a High Priest.

I suppose that's true. However if its such an important ordinance I still don't think people running their mouths should ruin it for everyone else. The endowment is online in both video, re-enactment, and transcripts and yet the Church doesn't seem to attempt to restrict the amount of people getting their blessings. It's encouraged that young men/women seek really diligently (and for young women this is a lot more work then men) to get their Endowments and the church hierarchy has no issue with that holy desire so long as the candidates are worthy.

The very act of "campaigning" as you put it, is somewhat prideful and I would think would disqualify individuals from receiving any blessing until they were humbled. However there are righteous cases for it! Abraham says he wanted to be a greater follower of righteousness, possess greater knowledge, and be a father of nations, he wanted these things so he went to the nearest great priesthood holder and obtained it. If someone is like Abraham and has these desires and has been proven faithful then there should be an easy way to obtain these blessings as restored by Joseph. Having to wait years and years to obtain this ordinance and having no way of letting anyone know you desire it and just sort of hoping a General Authority might come by your area and ask and then hoping your name gets mentioned seems wrong. 

Then again, I'm not the Lord, so what do I know? haha

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I suppose that's true. However if its such an important ordinance I still don't think people running their mouths should ruin it for everyone else. The endowment is online in both video, re-enactment, and transcripts and yet the Church doesn't seem to attempt to restrict the amount of people getting their blessings. It's encouraged that young men/women seek really diligently (and for young women this is a lot more work then men) to get their Endowments and the church hierarchy has no issue with that holy desire so long as the candidates are worthy.

The very act of "campaigning" as you put it, is somewhat prideful and I would think would disqualify individuals from receiving any blessing until they were humbled. However there are righteous cases for it! Abraham says he wanted to be a greater follower of righteousness, possess greater knowledge, and be a father of nations, he wanted these things so he went to the nearest great priesthood holder and obtained it. If someone is like Abraham and has these desires and has been proven faithful then there should be an easy way to obtain these blessings as restored by Joseph. Having to wait years and years to obtain this ordinance and having no way of letting anyone know you desire it and just sort of hoping a General Authority might come by your area and ask and then hoping your name gets mentioned seems wrong. 

Then again, I'm not the Lord, so what do I know? haha

I don't believe the "second annointing" is from God. It just appears to be set in stone that once they have that it is their ticket in no matter what. Have I got that wrong possibly? It just seems very hierarchical as well, and the Lord isn't as big a part of it or as needed. 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't believe the "second annointing" is from God. I'm sorry, but it appears to be set in stone that once they have that, that is their ticket in no matter what. Have I got that wrong possibly? It just seems very hierarchical as well, and that the Lord isn't as big a part of it or as needed. 

Originally it wasn't meant that way. Not sure what is promised now since I haven't received it. However originally it existed as evidence that someone, a couple, had been sealed up to eternal life. It's the ordinance that accompanies, or should accompany, "the more sure word of prophecy."  Like baptism is the accompanying ritual to the baptism of fire, so are these ordinances similarly related. It in and of itself does not hand you a "golden ticket" to the celestial kingdom just as Baptism does not confirm the remission of sins, only God can do that.

It is the fulfillment of the first anointing that says if you are faithful you will be called up and anointed kings and priest, queens and priestesses to the Most High God. Of course you don't actual rule over anything right at that moment but it is a confirmation that at the coming of Christ you will have these blessings. 

The second portion of the ordinance was between the couple and occurs at the home of the individuals participating and it enables the wife and husband to have claim upon each other in the resurrection, just like Mary with Jesus and the anointing of the feet.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't believe the "second annointing" is from God. It just appears to be set in stone that once they have that it is their ticket in no matter what. Have I got that wrong possibly? It just seems very hierarchical as well, and the Lord isn't as big a part of it or as needed. 

That's too bad since it's more directly based in your favorite the New Testament than the first endowment.

Every aspect of the second anointing is found in the NT.

I don't know what the aversion to hierarchy in the next life is.  I don't know why pass/fail is a preferable model.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

Which is very unfortunate. Of course God will make all alright in the end, but it's still unfortunate how secretive and uncommon it has become. If it is truly for bestowing the 'fulness of the priesthood' or at least the ordinances for signaling to God that such is worthy, then we ought to be giving it out to as many as people can be found worthy of it. Of course the "standards" would be much more intense but I agree with George F Richards that the Lord is displeased with the infrequent use of this ordinances. If God gave us this ability, why have we mostly abandoned it? and why the secretive nature? 

Agreed.

Although my honest opinion is that we as members don't generally want to meet the conditions for it.  The requirements of sacrifice and obedience that used to be attached would make most of us too uncomfortable these days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...