Disciplinary Council Unless Passing The Heavenly Gate Is Withdrawn From Publication

[Stone holm]

Perhaps I have missed it, but can you explain why this is problematic for you?  Is it possible that this ordinance is intended to not be generally taught?

 

Thank you,

 

-Smac

It's not terribly problematic to me since it seems to me that it is utterly unlikely that I will be involved in it in this life, however, it is a little unsettling to me to know that there are out there lovely sweet earnest Saints for whom I have huge respect much greater in some cases than I have for most GAs, who have not been taught this doctrine. Exactly how we justify such a limited use of such a rite which is not tied in any wise to a leadership authority need, is not clear to me. It gives off a bad aroma.

[smac97]

It's not terribly problematic to me since it seems to me that it is utterly unlikely that I will be involved in it in this life, however, it is a little unsettling to me to know that there are out there lovely sweet earnest Saints for whom I have huge respect much greater in some cases than I have for most GAs, who have not been taught this doctrine. Exactly how we justify such a limited use of such a rite which is not tied in any wise to a leadership authority need, is not clear to me. It gives off a bad aroma.

 

I still do not understand.  What is "unsettling" about this ordinance not being commonly taught?

 

Why does the lack of common teaching require justification?  As I asked before, is it possible that this ordinance is intended to not be generally taught?

 

What is the "bad aroma" of which you speak?  

 

The basis for your concern is not self-evident, but you are acting like it is.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Stone holm]

I still do not understand.  What is "unsettling" about this ordinance not being commonly taught?

 

Why does the lack of common teaching require justification?  As I asked before, is it possible that this ordinance is intended to not be generally taught?

 

What is the "bad aroma" of which you speak?  

 

The basis for your concern is not self-evident, but you are acting like it is.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I don't think there is any question that the Church does not intend for this ordinance to be generally taught. I also agree that it makes sense that people who have received the ordinance be admonished not to speak of it. But, to hide the existence of the rite from the general membership is to me a little unsettling, am thinking of this particular thread where the existence of such a rite being blared out as a result of a person who is claiming to have knowledge of it or to have received it , and the I think of these lovely faithful humble members who have lived the gospel faithfully all their lives and studied diligently the prescribed materials and avoided heretical works and they go to their graves never having heard of one of the most spectacular and wonderful rite of all. If you feel completely comfortable with that, then I don't think I would ever be able to explain my concern to you.

 

Your previous disrespectful comment has been removed and you will be blocked from the thread if you do not discuss temple matters very carefully.

[smac97]

I don't think there is any question that the Church does not intend for this ordinance to be generally taught.

Agreed. The Church is open about some things, not open about others.

The question, instead, is your assertion that the lack of openness about this ordinance is per se inappropriate (that it has a "bad aroma").

I also agree that it makes sense that people who have received the ordinance be admonished not to speak of it.

"It makes sense" is a separate question from the propriety of not discussing it. You are acting as if this lack of openness is self-evidently a bad thing (but apparently a bad thing that "makes sense").

But, to hide the existence of the rite from the general membership is to me a little unsettling,

But why? The particulars of the Endowment are not disclosed to "the general membership," and are instead disclosed to those who participate in the ordinance. The Savior taught things to limited numbers of his disciples which were apparently not disclosed to "the general membership."

So let me clarify my previous question: Is it possible that this ordinance is intended to not be generally taught, and that God is the author of that intention?

am thinking of this particular thread where the existence of such a rite being blared out as a result of a person who is claiming to have knowledge of it or to have received it, and the I think of these lovely faithful humble members who have lived the gospel faithfully all their lives and studied diligently the prescribed materials and avoided heretical works and they go to their graves never having heard of one of the most spectacular and wonderful rite of all.

Again, why is this a necessarily bad thing? All things will be revealed to those who seek after truth. No matter how hard we try, I do not think anyone will go to their grave having acquired knowledge of all things.

Are you suggesting that this lack of disclosure contravenes God's will? That He wants this ordinance to be generally taught, but that the General Authorities, apparently for generations, have been defying His will? Do you have any evidence or argument to support such a claim?

If you feel completely comfortable with that, then I don't think I would ever be able to explain my concern to you.

Why is that? I'm a reasonably intelligent person. I might be able to comprehend your concern (even if I don't share it).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

 I think of these lovely faithful humble members who have lived the gospel faithfully all their lives and studied diligently the prescribed materials and avoided heretical works and they go to their graves never having heard of one of the most spectacular and wonderful rite of all. 

 

Have they been robbed of anything by just not knowing something?  What would have changed in their lives with that knowledge?  If someone is called to partake of it, they will learn of it.  One doesn't work toward it any differently whether one had knowledge of it or not, one cannot campaign for it.  In fact, some people might think it is a good idea for it not to be well known so that good hearted people aren't wondering what they lack that they haven't been given the opportunity to partake of it.

[Stone holm]

Agreed. The Church is open about some things, not open about others.The question, instead, is your assertion that the lack of openness about this ordinance is per se inappropriate (that it has a "bad aroma")."It makes sense" is a separate question from the propriety of not discussing it. You are acting as if this lack of openness is self-evidently a bad thing (but apparently a bad thing that "makes sense").But why? The particulars of the Endowment are not disclosed to "the general membership," and are instead disclosed to those who participate in the ordinance. The Savior taught things to limited numbers of his disciples which were apparently not disclosed to "the general membership."So let me clarify my previous question: Is it possible that this ordinance is intended to not be generally taught, and that God is the author of that intention?Again, why is this a necessarily bad thing? All things will be revealed to those who seek after truth. No matter how hard we try, I do not think anyone will go to their grave having acquired knowledge of all things.Are you suggesting that this lack of disclosure contravenes God's will? That He wants this ordinance to be generally taught, but that the General Authorities, apparently for generations, have been defying His will? Do you have any evidence or argument to support such a claim?Why is that? I'm a reasonably intelligent person. I might be able to comprehend your concern (even if I don't share it).Thanks,-Smac

Not sure about responding to this given the mod admonition, so won't respond at all to the comments regarding the Temple. As to individuals who have received this rite being admonished not to speak of it, it makes sense and is wise counsel since to go around claiming to have received such a special rite would be an act completely inconsistent with humility. As a result any such references to some specific person having received the right should remain confidential. That such a rite exists and its nature is something one would expect that members would be knowledgeable about. While we keep the details of certain rituals sacred such as Temple rites, we do not keep their existence secret. Members know of the existence of Temple rites and their general purpose and where they occur. It is not conceivable to me that a member would not know basically of all the rites though he or she will not know their content. Such are in no wise analogous to what we have been talking about here. Here members are being taught to strive to have their calling and election made sure. They are being led to believe this is something strictly between themselves and The Lord, with no mention whatsoever of the need or even existence of some type of Priesthood intervention in the form of an anointing. Yet, despite this there is in actuality such an ordinance--the existence of which a good faithful and studious member would challenge the existence of if it were casually mentioned in class. In other words we are intentionally keeping faithful Temple worthy members ignorant of a portion of the Gospel.

[Stone holm]

Have they been robbed of anything by just not knowing something?  What would have changed in their lives with that knowledge?  If someone is called to partake of it, they will learn of it.  One doesn't work toward it any differently whether one had knowledge of it or not, one cannot campaign for it.  In fact, some people might think it is a good idea for it not to be well known so that good hearted people aren't wondering what they lack that they haven't been given the opportunity to partake of it.

Yes. You don't know that. Beside the point. Really? If that were true why would they have not been afforded the opportunity?

[smac97]

While we keep the details of certain rituals sacred such as Temple rites, we do not keep their existence secret.

I'm not sure this is kept a "secret." We don't talk about the ordinance of foot washing, either.

In any event, I still don't see how this is necessarily problematic. You seem to be treating this as a self-evident problem, but you have not been able to explain how it's problematic, despite numerous requests. If you cannot articulate the basis for this being a problem, then how big of a problem can it be?

 

Members know of the existence of Temple rites and their general purpose and where they occur.

Still, there is a significant measure of nondisclosure about the Endowment. The distinction between disclosure of the Endowment and disclosure of the Second Anointing, then, is one of degree, not of quality. You apparently do not have a problem with the Church not publicizing the details of the Endowment, but you cannot articulate why the higher measure of nondisclosure as to the Second Anointing is necessarily problematic.

 

It is not conceivable to me that a member would not know basically of all the rites though he or she will not know their content. Such are in no wise analogous to what we have been talking about here. Here members are being taught to strive to have their calling and election made sure. They are being led to believe this is something strictly between themselves and The Lord, with no mention whatsoever of the need or even existence of some type of Priesthood intervention in the form of an anointing. Yet, despite this there is in actuality such an ordinance--the existence of which a good faithful and studious member would challenge the existence of if it were casually mentioned in class.

Perhaps because God doesn't intend this ordinance to be a topic for "casual mentioning."

 

In other words we are intentionally keeping faithful Temple worthy members ignorant of a portion of the Gospel.

Only if you choose to phrase the situation in the most uncharitable, most unflattering way possible.

I have a temple recommend, but I do not presume to know everything there is to know about the Church, nor do I presume to feel entitled to demand access to any and all information about the Gospel. I think God reveals things in his own due time. Moreover, there are things which should not be revealed to me until I am ready to receive them. Until then, ignorance (milk) is preferable to inappropriate knowledge (meat).

Moreover, if I truly apply myself to living and learning about the Restored Gospel, then I will receive additional light and knowledge. Whether that includes the topic under discussion is, I think, entirely up to God. It is not, I think, for us to criticize the Brethren for not disclosing something which they may very well have been instructed to not disclose.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 18, 2013 by smac97

[LordUther]

Yes it's such a big secret! It's not like you can go on Wikipedia and read all about it or anything...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_anointing

[Kenngo1969]

... Your previous disrespectful comment has been removed and you will be blocked from the thread if you do not discuss temple matters very carefully.

 

I don't begrudge Stone Holm the fact that he got an advanced warning and was placed on notice as to precisely what is objectionable about his conduct and the opportunity to comport himself accordingly.  I'm sure he appreciates it, and I think most of us would.  Alas, I was not accorded the same courtesy before being summarily removed from the Religious Freedom thread.   I would appreciate any illumination anyone who still has access to that thread could provide.  (PM me if you would like.)

Edited September 18, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[ERayR]

That such a rite exists and its nature is something one would expect that members would be knowledgeable about.

 

I think your own ignorance of this rite is skewing your perception.  In my own assessment from my own experiences I find that anyone who has been a member for any length of time is aware of this rite.  It just isn't a topic of general discussion.

[Senator]

I think your own ignorance of this rite is skewing your perception.  In my own assessment from my own experiences I find that anyone who has been a member for any length of time is aware of this rite.  It just isn't a topic of general discussion.

 

As a folklore, yes, I would agree that perhaps there might be many that are aware of the rite.

[canard78]

I don't begrudge Stone Holm the fact that he got an advanced warning and was placed on notice as to precisely what is objectionable about his conduct and the opportunity to comport himself accordingly.  I'm sure he appreciates it, and I think most of us would.  Alas, I was not accorded the same courtesy before being summarily removed from the Religious Freedom thread.   I would appreciate any illumination anyone who still has access to that thread could provide.  (PM me if you would like.)

 

Log out of your account and view the thread in question as a quest. Your last post in the thread will usually have the reason you're blocked. The mods tend to give at least one first warning on threads unless you made a very bad rule break. Only problem is that the warning will be in a post where you were close to the line and there's a good chance that you don't go back and read the post where you receive the warning.

[De Groote]

I don't understand why Stone holm is saying the rite is kept from the knowledge of Church members. Every single Temple endowment session mentions it as a future ordinance, no?

[webbles]

As a folklore, yes, I would agree that perhaps there might be many that are aware of the rite.

I had an institute class after my mission where this ordinance was mentioned by the teacher.  He basically said that it happens, he read a letter (I believe of one of his ancestors but I'm probably wrong) where they were invited to come to the temple to receive it, and then he said that's about all that he can say about it.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't understand why Stone holm is saying the rite is kept from the knowledge of Church members. Every single Temple endowment session mentions it as a future ordinance, no?

Alas, Stone Holm apparently has been too busy sleeping through the ceremony to notice.

 

[Senator]

I had an institute class after my mission where this ordinance was mentioned by the teacher.  He basically said that it happens, he read a letter (I believe of one of his ancestors but I'm probably wrong) where they were invited to come to the temple to receive it, and then he said that's about all that he can say about it.

 

Sounds like the making of folklore...

[Stone holm]

Sounds like the making of folklore...

Not responding to Temple baiting because of admonition. But I would challenge the notion that anyone going to the Temple comes back with knowledge of this rite. I am not saying that it doesn't occur, but I challenge the idea that longtime well read Mormons should be expected to know about it.

[smac97]

Not responding to Temple baiting because of admonition. But I would challenge the notion that anyone going to the Temple comes back with knowledge of this rite. I am not saying that it doesn't occur, but I challenge the idea that longtime well read Mormons should be expected to know about it.

I challenge that idea, too, since it appears that this ordinance is not intended to be generally taught. Nevertheless, quite a few people seem to know about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

Not responding to Temple baiting because of admonition. But I would challenge the notion that anyone going to the Temple comes back with knowledge of this rite. I am not saying that it doesn't occur, but I challenge the idea that longtime well read Mormons should be expected to know about it.

 

Maybe I haven't been paying attention very well for the past 40 years of temple attendance, but I don't know where this is mentioned, either.

 

I've known about the Second Anointing for some time, although I don't think I can pin down when I first heard about it, or in what circumstances.

[Kenngo1969]

Another thing to consider: if it's been awhile since someone has had a chance to participate in initiatories (washings and anointings), the destiny of the faithful among God's children is spelled out quite well in those ordinances.  You might want to avail yourself of the opportunity.  Perhaps it would be an enlightening experience.  I know it was for me when I took the opportunity to participate in initiatories when my family and I visited my aunt and uncle, who were serving as Temple missionaries in Nauvoo, for the first time since receiving my own Endowment nearly 20 years before.  Food for thought.

[ERayR]

Maybe I haven't been paying attention very well for the past 40 years of temple attendance, but I don't know where this is mentioned, either.

 

I've known about the Second Anointing for some time, although I don't think I can pin down when I first heard about it, or in what circumstances.

 

I heard about it 25 or 30 years ago at a Know Your Religion presentation

[David T]

For those unaware of where the SA is taught in the Temple, listen for what is being explained when the phrase, "The day will come..." is spoken, in the prologue/introduction to the endowment before the ordinance/ceremony proper actually begins. It's kind of spelled out. 

 

Because it's not reinforced in outside discourse, many don't pick up on it, or assume it's not something of-this-life. But it's taught in the context of the ordinances physically received in the temple.  it is taught, repeatedly, and quite specifically, in both the initiatory ordinances, and in the endowment's prologue.

[De Groote]

Thank you, "David T," for your post. 

 

It is interesting how, sometimes, the Lord hides things in plain site.

[WmLaw]

For those unaware of where the SA is taught in the Temple, listen for what is being explained when the phrase, "The day will come..." is spoken, in the prologue/introduction to the endowment before the ordinance/ceremony proper actually begins. It's kind of spelled out.

Because it's not reinforced in outside discourse, many don't pick up on it, or assume it's not something of-this-life. But it's taught in the context of the ordinances physically received in the temple. it is taught, repeatedly, and quite specifically, in both the initiatory ordinances, and in the endowment's prologue.

I don't disagree with your points. And anyone who knows of the SA can see those references in retrospect. But I still suspect that the majority of temple attending members do not know of the SA, and those that do didn't just figure it out from the endowment and initiatory sessions.