Cobalt-70 Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 They are no more assured their salvation than anyone else. It is an ordinance with promises; just as the endowment is.That depends on whether you take seriously D&C 132:18, 26-27. Verse 18 says that a sealing must be "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, and then verses 26-27 say that if a marriage is "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise," then he or she may "commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever and all manner of blasphemies," yet will receive exaltation so long as he or she does not become a son of perdition."Sealing by the Holy Spirit of promise," which is done "through him whom I have anointed," is obviously an ordinance, and the only ordinance to which it could refer is the second anointing. That this sealing is a nearly unconditional Calvinistic-like salvation is backed up by statements by Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt and Brigham Young.Admittedly, people like Heber C. Kimball have disagreed, and I would not be surprised if here are some (or all) in the modern church hierarchy who happen to disagree with Joseph Smith on this point. But most modern Mormons don't really take D&C 132 seriously, anyway, since the end of polygamy.
Freedom Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 Most Mormons have never heard of it. It is super-secret ordinance for the Mormon elite, but it is mentioned obliquely in the D&C. See this Dialogue article for a good introduction.In other words you have absolutely no evidence for what you are saying. Super-secret ordinance for the Mormon elite? Really?
Cobalt-70 Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 In other words you have absolutely no evidence for what you are saying. Super-secret ordinance for the Mormon elite? Really?It is super-secret now. As I understand it, participants are told they cannot even tell their immediate family members about it. But there is plenty of discussion about it in the journals of church leaders, and even talks over the pulpit in the 19th century. It's also hidden in plain sight within the D&C. It used to be pretty much common knowledge.I'm not saying there is not a benefit to this high secrecy. By maintaining secrecy, participants become part of a select group of insiders who know something that the rest of Mormonism doesn't know. That breeds loyalty. It's like when your boss takes you aside and gives you the secret key to the executive washroom. I would imagine that the experience would redouble the participant's zeal for the faith.
Freedom Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 It is super-secret now. As I understand it, participants are told they cannot even tell their immediate family members about it. But there is plenty of discussion about it in the journals of church leaders, and even talks over the pulpit in the 19th century. It's also hidden in plain sight within the D&C. It used to be pretty much common knowledge.I'm not saying there is not a benefit to this high secrecy. By maintaining secrecy, participants become part of a select group of insiders who know something that the rest of Mormonism doesn't know. That breeds loyalty. It's like when your boss takes you aside and gives you the secret key to the executive washroom. I would imagine that the experience would redouble the participant's zeal for the faith.You are insisting something is happening and when we ask for evidence you simply claim it is all kept secret. Unless you have evidence, you are making baseless claims. I do not doubt the doctrine, I doubt your claims about who is receiving it and under what circumstances.
Cobalt-70 Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 You are insisting something is happening and when we ask for evidence you simply claim it is all kept secret. Unless you have evidence, you are making baseless claims. I do not doubt the doctrine, I doubt your claims about who is receiving it and under what circumstances.I've provided plenty of citations. Just look back through my posts, and especially the Dialogue article I cited.
Freedom Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 I've provided plenty of citations. Just look back through my posts, and especially the Dialogue article I cited.You have made the following claims about washing feet:It is part of the second anointingIt was part of the School of the Prophets endowmentIt is open only to general authorities and their wives and others with their calling and election made sureJoseph distinguishes between the washing of the feet and the sealing, and nowhere does it state that it is part of this ordinance, nor that it is preserved for general authorities. Due to the complete lack of evidence, I maintain that too little is known of the washing of feet to speculate on its role, and that there are no mention of ordinances reserved for the general authorities and their wives.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 How do you qualify for the second anointing? Do you have to be an apostle, stake president, mission president, branch president, etc?
The Nehor Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 How do you qualify for the second anointing? Do you have to be an apostle, stake president, mission president, branch president, etc?Holy thread necromancy Batman!The conditions for qualification are given in the temple. 2
EllenMaksoud Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88?lang=engSomeone washed my feet about 20 years ago. It was sobering. I wonder why it is not done now?
JLHPROF Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 How do you qualify for the second anointing? Do you have to be an apostle, stake president, mission president, branch president, etc? A few quotes: JOSEPH F. SMITH 'Recommends for the second anointing should only be given to men and women who have lived together as husband and wife, and who through long years of faithfulness are still found to be worthy before the Lord and their brethren.'They should be men of good report, men whose faith has never been shaken, whose integrity to the Lord and his servants has been beyond question, men who have been valiant for the truth, men who have either defended the servants of the Lord or would do so at all hazards should circumstances require it at their hands.'They should be men who have done what they could whether in preaching or working or otherwise helping their file leaders in the building up of Zion, and who are ever ready and willing to labor in the interests of Zion at home or abroad.'And all those thus recommended must be in harmony with the First Presidency and general authorities of the Church, also those immediately presiding over them.'And this spirit also must characterize their wives in order to make them eligible to be associated with their husbands in receiving these blessings. JOSEPH SMITHThe other Comforter spoken of is a subject of great interest, and perhaps understood by few of this generation. After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted.When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John, in the 14th chapter, from the 12th to the 27th verses.Note the 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 verses: Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions--Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 Oh I'll never be worthy of that. No wonder probably it's reserved for General Authorities and high leadership position people. Makes sense. Hopefully the rest of us can receive it during the millennium or something.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 And I'm wondering if the second anointing is necessary for exaltation or what the point of it is.
JLHPROF Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 And I'm wondering if the second anointing is necessary for exaltation or what the point of it is. It's a bit late for me to find the reference, but it qualifies a person to see the Savior face to face and live (not be consumed by His glory), as opposed to in vision or dream.And then as Joseph said "he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face". The second anointing is the ordination into exaltation - to rule and reign as King or Queen in the eternities, and the visitation of the Savior is the confirmation or ratification of that ordination - the very final blessing. That's the very point of existence.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 Then those who happen to be lucky enough to get it are VERY lucky. Hopefully the rest of us can receive it in the eternities.
Storm Rider Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 (edited) And I'm wondering if the second anointing is necessary for exaltation or what the point of it is. No, it is absolutely not a requirement for exaltation by or for anyone. The Second Anointing is only possible for a very few because of the demands of who can administer the ordinance. It has more to do with those in leadership positions in temples and General Authorities and the demands placed upon them than with their exaltation. Video, the Second Anointing is an ordinance, but it does not control those who have their calling of election made sure. These are two separate things and you have as much opportunity to seek after your own calling of election as the next individual. Edited October 24, 2014 by Storm Rider 2
Silhouette Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 My Father was of the Primitive Baptist faith, and my Grandfather and Uncle are Primitive Baptist preachers. They practice the Washing of Feet in their faith.
mfbukowski Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 Do Mormons believe that Jesus instituted the endowment ceremony at the Last Supper then?There is also evidence that it began with the visits of Moses and Elijah who restored the sealing power before it was again lost during the apostasy.
mfbukowski Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 The foot washing has never been part of the endowment ceremony. It is not part of the "washing and annointing" that precedes the endowment ceremony either. Neither is that "washing and anointing" part of the endowment ceremony. They are two separate things. The foot washing is part of another ceremony that comes after the endowment (followed by sealing/eternal marriage) ceremony, and is rarely administered in the Church today. And the foot washing that is mentioned in the D&C in conjunction with the organization of the school of prophets is a different thing again entirely. Did I confuse you enough?For what it's worth, this is the right answer.By definition, he who says he knows about this, doesn't. There are temple presidents who know nothing about this.
Silhouette Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 In what situations nowadays would this take place in the temple? And what sets people apart to be able to receive this ordinance? I'd never heard of it until this thread. Are people who don't have this ordinance done somehow missing out on certain blessings? What blessings come to those who have this done as opposed to those who don't?
6EQUJ5 Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 That particular ordinance was part of the process of admission to the school of prophets; and as far as I know a schools of prophets is not organized in the Church today; therefore that particular ordinance would not be administered in the Church at the present time. This is false. It is part of the second anointing reserved only for the most righteous members of the Church.
6EQUJ5 Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 In what situations nowadays would this take place in the temple? And what sets people apart to be able to receive this ordinance? I'd never heard of it until this thread. Are people who don't have this ordinance done somehow missing out on certain blessings? What blessings come to those who have this done as opposed to those who don't? This is part of the second anointing. In the early days of temple practice this ordinance was offered to many more members than it is today. Today, the ordinance is reserved only for select members who have proven their worthiness to receive it.
Silhouette Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 (edited) Nevermind. My questions were answered in a previous post that I didn't see before. Edited October 24, 2014 by Silhouette
Storm Rider Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 This is false. It is part of the second anointing reserved only for the most righteous members of the Church. This is false. It has nothing to do with degree of righteousness. It has to do with function in the church; function does not equal righteousness. 1
Storm Rider Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 This is part of the second anointing. In the early days of temple practice this ordinance was offered to many more members than it is today. Today, the ordinance is reserved only for select members who have proven their worthiness to receive it. This is more accurate. 1
Silhouette Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 This is false. It has nothing to do with degree of righteousness. It has to do with function in the church; function does not equal righteousness.Can you please elaborate on "function in the church"?
Recommended Posts