Stuff I Would Just As Soon Not Known

[omni]

[insert mocking emoticon here, right Omni?]

That's actually pretty good advice, whether Omni really thinks it is or not. The absolute worst thing that can be said about it is that it couldn't hurt.

I'm still learning from the emoticon master, Obi-Wan Kenngo-bi

[Kenngo1969]

I'm still learning from the emoticon master, Obi-Wan Kenngo-bi

 

Omni, I'll give you this: however we might disagree (or not) about the significance of certain (mostly small-and-simple) things in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, your brand of humor, involving puns and creative use of the language, is something I definitely can appreciate!    (And to continue the metaphor, my advice to you is simply this: "Use the Force, My Young Padawan!" )

Edited September 23, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

Not sure I understand the comments about profanity, or the relevance.  There is a distinction between speaking of sacred things such as the contents of the Temple endowment, etc.  Not sure how that applies to not speaking of even the existence of something.

==You didn't have to go wading through online filth to figure our if the Second Ordinance exists, right? You already knew that. So what did you go wading through that filth for? Why did you seek information from people who were literally profaning such a sacred topic?

==The Church strongly encourages its members to study the Gospel. This is not in dispute. However, there is virtually no information available to Latter-day Saints through faithful and legitimate study materials about the Second Anointing. This is also not in dispute. The one reference on the LDS Church's website to the Second Anointing is an exhortation to instructors to not talk about it in a classroom setting.

==We live in an age wherein we are blessed with an overabundance of information and materials about the LDS Church, its doctrines, teachings, and practices. We are taught to "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118). Are you doing that? Or are you disregarding the "best books" and skipping over huge amounts of literature about countless facets of the Restored Gospel, and instead turning to enemies of our faith and wading through profanations to seek out information about a profoundly sacred topic which we are apparently not supposed to talk about much?

==According to this 1991 Ensign article, "Profanity refers to another sort of offensive language. It means, literally, outside (pro) the temple or shrine (fanum). Profane language drags sacred words out of the sanctuary and into the marketplace, making a mockery of holy things. It uses in a thoughtless, sacrilegious, or impious way terms usually graced with sacred significance, thus violating the Lord’s injunction: 'That which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care.'" (D&C 63:64.)

==Is it possible, then, that there are certain things which are so sacred that they designed to be reverently spoken of, so much so that to speaking them outside ("pro") of the temple ("fanum") is wrong?

==Is it possible that a topic which is essentially absent from the LDS Church's website (notice that the Endowment and other temple ordinances are mentioned frequently, though in limited detail) would seem to be something we should not bring up repeatedly in public as a topic of casual conversation (such as, say, starting up multiple threads about the topic on an Internet message board)? Is it possible that seeking out information bout such a topic from people who are manifestly hostile to the Restored Gospel, and who are clearly profaning the topic, is not a good idea for observant Latter-day Saints?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

Disclaimer: I'm not speaking of your specific situation, Stone Holm.  Our access to information, along with our manifold reactions to it, depends on what we bring to the table as individuals ... our varying testimonies, experiences, tastes, capacities to tolerate ambiguity, willingness to be charitable toward our fellow Saints (especially leaders) even when they might not deserve it, and so on.

 

That said, I do think, however, that this thread is a perfect illustration of why the Church of Jesus Christ sometimes is "damned if it does, and damned if it don't": if leaders say, "Milk before meat," they're ridiculed by those who believe those leaders simply are trying to insult members' intelligence, on the one hand, yet they're also excoriated by those who ask, "Why did I get meat before I was ready for it?" on the other hand.  Seems like a no-win situation.

[why me]

 

Unfortunately, in the process of doing that internet research I got exposed to stuff I would just as soon not have thought about, namely: all the posts arguing over whether Mitt Romney had received the Second Annointing  and whether Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun have had their Temple work done.  So the problem as I see it, is that it is very distasteful to have to do internet research in order to find out things about the Church, and in the process get exposed to stuff you would rather not know.  So should a member stay ignorant because they avoid general internet research on Church matters, and simply go with the sanitized stuff put out by the Church?

I think that if one has a testimony that Joseph was a prophet and that the 11 witnesses did not lie about their experience, one can survive any internet search for information. It matters not if Eva and Adolf had temple work done or whether Mitt got his second annointing. What matters is the coming forth of the book of mormon and how the 11 witness got their testimonies. This is the foundation of the lds church.

[why me]

If information is causing you problems just enjoy the company of fellow members.

It is amazing just what affects a person's testimony and why they can disgard all spiritual experiences because of what they learned from the internet. I have often thought that lds testimonies are based on sand. Why that is I have no idea but it seems to be that way. Maybe there is a disconnect between spiritual experience and reality. I am not claiming that this is the OP problem but it does seem to be a general problem in the lds church. I suppose that members expect no wrinkles but a non-ruffled shirt when it comes to the lds church.

[Questing Beast]

Well from my limited understanding, the answer to that as to the second annointing is no, but as to the other stuff yes.

But the so-called second anointing IS ordinances, the ultimate ordinance, it is so asserted, since it admits that "your calling and election are made sure", i.e. your work here is done and all you have to do is die and get out of here. So I don't believe it either, and that leads to not believing in any of the ordinances that precede the second anointing. That leads to disbelieving in any dogmatic assertions that ordinances are actually required in the hereafter. The most that can be said for them is that ordinances point the attention of the receiver toward a higher goal than they otherwise would have set for themselves, and disciplines their daily walk instead of the opposite, which is to dither with inconsequentials and lose focus on what we Exist for, which Is to find Joy in being alive....

[Garden Girl]

 

This feeling has arisen as a result of the doctrine of the Second Annointing.  I have tended to do my study based on the Journal of Discourses and teachings of the Prophets, and have shied away from the internet because there is so much false information on it and vicious articles written by former members and professional ministers.  So when the subject came up and I got berated for not having done internet research, I did some internet research and it looks fairly obvious if you were surfing the net you would have known about the rite of the Second Annointing even if the Church hadn’t really openly taught it.

 

If I am not mistaken, the Second Annointing is part of the doctrine on having one's Calling and Election Made Sure.... as I said, I could be wrong and please correct me if I am... Elder Bruce R. McConkie spoke about this doctrine and I assumed it was the Second Annointing.   The Prophet Joseph taught about this and receiving the Second Comforter (ToPJS compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1976, pg 150-151).  He taught that the Holy Ghost, received through the laying on of hands, was the First Comforter.  And, that after living a life of righteousness and by every word of God, the Lord having thoroughly proven him, the man will find his calling and election made sure and he will receive the Second Comforter. 

Who is this Second Comforter... Joseph taught that it is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself... and when any man receives this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, and he will have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God...

It is my understanding that this is an ordinance of the temple, that is rarely given, and so is not something we talk about outside of the temple in any depth. 

I've read several books that have given a brief reference to this doctrine...

 

GG

Edited September 23, 2013 by Garden Girl

[Stone holm]

Okay people, I am not apostasizing over this -- get over that.  What I am wondering about is whether it is ever appropriate to shield the general membership from the fact that a rite exists.  We have people, like myself, who have self-censored themselves from the rants of the antis and former members.  There are, I believe, many members who have so censored themselves in the past and many continue to do so.  However, there is involved in this a sense of trust.  That trust is that we can with a little searching discover the existence of the religious practices and rites of the Church.  We understand that the details of the Temple are sacred and not to be discussed outside the Temple, except in very general terms.  But it would be reasonable to assume that every member who has exercised a modicum of effort would be aware that there are initiatories in the Temple, that there are what is called an endowment session in the Temple where certain keys, signs and tokens are bestowed (the Church explains that even in videos), further we are aware of the Sealing rooms and that couples and families can be sealed therein for time and eternity.  These are sacred matters.  But we discuss their existence on a regular basis in Church and outside of Church, etc.

 

However, we have a rite which has never been discussed openly by the Church.   We have devout members, Saints in every respect, going to the grave not even knowing of the existence of such a rite -- not because of lack of study on their part.  Can we justify that by invoking the concept of sacredness.  As far as the semantics with "profane" is concerned, obviously the word is out and the rite is being openly discussed on the internet on blogs that most members, including myself, would generally shy away from.  So because the Church does not discuss the rite's existence in open terms, if a member hears of it -- they really cannot go to their Bishop or Stake President or even higher up the chain without a strong likelihood that the Biship has never heard of it, and possibly the Stake President has never heard of it and above that level the question gets deflected.  So the member decides that the rumor was false, or the member decides to wade into the muck to get a confirmation.

 

And again, I ask is that a healthy situation?

[Stone holm]

If I am not mistaken, the Second Annointing is part of the doctrine on having one's Calling and Election Made Sure.... as I said, I could be wrong and please correct me if I am... Elder Bruce R. McConkie spoke about this doctrine and I assumed it was the Second Annointing.   The Prophet Joseph taught about this and receiving the Second Comforter (ToPJS compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1976, pg 150-151).  He taught that the Holy Ghost, received through the laying on of hands, was the First Comforter.  And, that after living a life of righteousness and by every word of God, the Lord having thoroughly proven him, the man will find his calling and election made sure and he will receive the Second Comforter. 

Who is this Second Comforter... Joseph taught that it is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself... and when any man receives this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, and he will have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God...

It is my understanding that this is an ordinance of the temple, that is rarely given, and so is not something we talk about outside of the temple in any depth. 

I've read several books that have reference to this doctrine...

 

GG

 

Having ones calling and election made sure is openly taught, that it involves mortals conducting an ordinance, is not.

[bluebell]

I think I get what you are saying Stoneholm.

 

I think it's important to read the news, for example, but as a parent, reading stories where horrible things happen to children (or animals for that matter) is incredibly difficult.  It's painful and has a lasting negative affect on my life.  Yes, there are benefits as I gain knowledge which hopefully will help me protect my kids better, but it still doesn't seem worth it have the time because it just makes me feel bad.

 

And having a degree in history, I really do get how difficult it is to be presented with information that might not be valid or truthful, without having a good way to discover that.  It's draining and it can make a person just not want to study a subject. Is it really worth all that work and angst if in the end you're still not going to know what is true?  Sometimes I think 'no' can be a valid answer.

 

I agree that God wants us to be as knowledgeable as possible, but I don't think He wants us to gain knowledge we can't handle or don't know how to process.  It makes life a bit difficult though, trying to walk that fine line.

[foster]

My anecdotes are that the second anointing was widely known Church members, at some point in the 20th century it stopped talked about, not sure why.

[Questing Beast]

I think I get what you are saying Stoneholm.

 

I think it's important to read the news, for example, but as a parent, reading stories where horrible things happen to children (or animals for that matter) is incredibly difficult.  It's painful and has a lasting negative affect on my life.  Yes, there are benefits as I gain knowledge which hopefully will help me protect my kids better, but it still doesn't seem worth it have the time because it just makes me feel bad.

 

And having a degree in history, I really do get how difficult it is to be presented with information that might not be valid or truthful, without having a good way to discover that.  It's draining and it can make a person just not want to study a subject. Is it really worth all that work and angst if in the end you're still not going to know what is true?  Sometimes I think 'no' can be a valid answer.

 

I agree that God wants us to be as knowledgeable as possible, but I don't think He wants us to gain knowledge we can't handle or don't know how to process.  It makes life a bit difficult though, trying to walk that fine line.

I disagree. You are trying to have your "cake" and eat it too. You can't study and weed out the "bad" stuff. It's impossible. Doing it officially is called censorship, an evil thing if there ever was.

 

"God" is not concerned with what we learn on Earth, since it has virtually no impact on immortal minds once the venue of mortality is dispensed with. We learn from literally everything in mortality, "good and bad" intermixed. Trying to "protect" our children is impossible anyway, and we just come off as control freaks, which is what we become in fact when we try. The world is simply too big and complex (especially today!) for parents to be able to stand as some bulwark to protect their precious little darlings from the big bad evil world. We are all born into it, we all run into it, and we all get scarred up by it, and so we need to accept it as early as it happens, when it happens, how it happens, and talk about it endlessly, i.e. talk through it. Children will trust their parents the more if they know mom and dad have been through it already....

Edited September 23, 2013 by Questing Beast

[ERayR]

 that it involves mortals conducting an ordinance, is not.

 

Are you sure just how it is conducted or are you going by supposition?

[thesometimesaint]

Disclaimer: I'm not speaking of your specific situation, Stone Holm.  Our access to information, along with our manifold reactions to it, depends on what we bring to the table as individuals ... our varying testimonies, experiences, tastes, capacities to tolerate ambiguity, willingness to be charitable toward our fellow Saints (especially leaders) even when they might not deserve it, and so on.

 

That said, I do think, however, that this thread is a perfect illustration of why the Church of Jesus Christ sometimes is "damned if it does, and damned if it don't": if leaders say, "Milk before meat," they're ridiculed by those who believe those leaders simply are trying to insult members' intelligence, on the one hand, yet they're also excoriated by those who ask, "Why did I get meat before I was ready for it?" on the other hand.  Seems like a no-win situation.

 

It is a no-win situation. Every idea must of course be presented in the context of a preceeding idea. You don't throw the average 1st grader into a calculus class, and expect them to understand it.

[Stone holm]

My anecdotes are that the second anointing was widely known Church members, at some point in the 20th century it stopped talked about, not sure why.

 

Well from the blogspot I read, and no I don't remember which -- I was rifling through them as fast as possible.  The records regarding the second annointings were sealed from historians around 1949, which apparently coincided with a substantial drop in the number of them being performed.  I don't know if any of that is true.  The mental image that I had always carried with me was that having ones calling and election made sure was something strictly between you and the Lord, and when the Lord told you directly Himself -- you weren't to talk about it.  Here, however, you have a mortal physically performing an ordinance.  The idea of someone doing such a thing, I suspect became distinctly unfashionable out in the world and so the Church started holding the cards closer to the vest so to speak at that point.  I don't think the membership would get all bent out of shape if it were openly taught, better to hear it from your gospel doctrine teacher than to hear it from someone that just got himself subjected to a disciplinary council blabbing on and on about the fact he had received the ordinance.

[Stone holm]

Are you sure just how it is conducted or are you going by supposition?

 

Are you sure?  No, I am not sure.  I know what is taught, but we are not taught about a second annointing.  Are you saying that it is not conducted that way?

[ERayR]

Are you sure?  No, I am not sure.  I know what is taught, but we are not taught about a second annointing.  Are you saying that it is not conducted that way?

 

It seems the implication is that it is an ordinance where one it introduced, face to face, to the Savior and therefore he is presiding at the ordinance.

[WmLaw]

It seems the implication is that it is an ordinance where one it introduced, face to face, to the Savior and therefore he is presiding at the ordinance.

That is the implication. Other available accounts seem to differ.

[Senator]

Having ones calling and election made sure is openly taught, that it involves mortals conducting an ordinance, is not.

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that the church leadership is ok with this topic, as to its contemporary existence, being viewed as a "mysterious thing", or even that of forklore (eventhough historically they have openly exhorted the saints to seek to have their "calling and election made sure").

 

Evidently it is a mystery, the existence of which, is to be inadvertently discovered while one is faithfully engaged in keeping the commandments. Not something to be purposefully pursued.

[thesometimesaint]

I disagree. You are trying to have your "cake" and eat it too. You can't study and weed out the "bad" stuff. It's impossible. Doing it officially is called censorship, an evil thing if there ever was.

 

"God" is not concerned with what we learn on Earth, since it has virtually no impact on immortal minds once the venue of mortality is dispensed with. We learn from literally everything in mortality, "good and bad" intermixed. Trying to "protect" our children is impossible anyway, and we just come off as control freaks, which is what we become in fact when we try. The world is simply too big and complex (especially today!) for parents to be able to stand as some bulwark to protect their precious little darlings from the big bad evil world. We are all born into it, we all run into it, and we all get scarred up by it, and so we need to accept it as early as it happens, when it happens, how it happens, and talk about it endlessly, i.e. talk through it. Children will trust their parents the more if they know mom and dad have been through it already....

 

All censorship isn't evil. If your child was just learning how to do simple math. Would it be evil censorship to not skip to calculus in that early learning?

 

Incorrect. God is very concerned with what we learn here on earth. No man can be saved in ignorance. It has all impact on our immortal minds. While those whom haven't had the opprtunity to have the Restored Gospel taught to them in this life. It will be given to them in the next. What ever their level of acceptance does have major implications for where we will be in the next. Also we are to be of service to our fellow man. It is very hard to be of service if we haven't been taught how to do it.

 

We have to protect our young. To not do so is not only a very bad thing to do. It is criminal not to. What good parents do is give more and more responsibility to their children as their children grow and mature in the use of that responsibility. IE; Most kids by the age of about 10 years old have physically developed enough to drive a car on the highway. Very few, if any, have the mental maturity to do so. In the Gospel sense. If we can't control ourselves. What makes us think that God will give us control over anything else?

 

Yes things happen. We live in a fallen world, so bad things are going to happen, as well as good things. All these things will give us experience. As good parents we teach our children how to do good things; and avoid, or minimize, the effects of the bad things. As a parent I knew that I didn't always have the right answer. However as my children grew and progressed we'd talk about it.

[Stone holm]

That is the implication. Other available accounts seem to differ.

 

Well, I confess, I don't know and since it is not openly taught it is not possible to say anything with definity.  To me, I believe what is openly taught is that you should strive to live your life so that one day the Savior would appear to you, or clearly speak to you, and say "I am the only Begotten, well done good and faithful servant, your calling and election is assured"  or something akin to that.  But, what seems to be the case is that in addition to that, or perhaps as a prelude to that, or perhaps in lieu of that you and your wife go and a General Authority (or perhaps the President) lays his hands on your head and annoints you with oil and unconditionally blesses you with the same blessings that are conditionally bestowed upon you in the initiatories or something like that.  Its this second rite that isn't openly taught.

[ERayR]

That is the implication. Other available accounts seem to differ.

 

How about referencing these other accounts so that we can assess their reliability?

[Kenngo1969]

It is a no-win situation. Every idea must of course be presented in the context of a preceeding idea. You don't throw the average 1st grader into a calculus class, and expect them to understand it.

Well, [Ahem!] I wish I could relate, but the truth is ... Well, I'm a math prodigy.  I was doing calculus then, but otherwise, I was just your normal, average, every-day 1st-grader. 

 

(And if you believe that, please PM me with contact information regarding a bridge I think you'd be interested in purchasing! )

[JLHPROF]

It seems the implication is that it is an ordinance where one it introduced, face to face, to the Savior and therefore he is presiding at the ordinance.

This message thread seems to be confusing and combining two separate items - 2nd annointing and Calling & Election.

 

1. The Second Annointing is an ordinance, similar to the washing and annointing, only instead of being ordained to become a King & Priest, the person is actually ordained as such.  There is then a second part to the ordinance that involves the husband and wife at home.

Basically, it means you have received all the ordinances and have been sealed up to eternal life and exaltation.  But this is not your calling and election made sure.

 

2. The Calling and Election is when the Savior appears to you personally, lays His hands upon your head, and confirms the sealing.  Or in other words, when the Savior accepts you and makes you His joint-heir.

 

Basically - your first annointing is the calling (to become), your second is your election (chosen & actually given), and the made sure is when the Savior confirms the blessing personally.  Hence, many are called - receive their endowments, but few are chosen - receive their calling & election.

 

There are numerous records of second annointings - specifically the record of Brigham Young & Heber C. Kimball receiving theirs.

Someone's calling and election being made sure is, as you might imagine, not something that is really recorded, but there places where people allude to receiving it.