Storm Rider Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Ok, I was confused.My grandfather once--in person and in private shared with me his "made sure" experience...just leave it at that.Anyways, I was at work today and I for some reason had that experience play again and again in my mind and so I decided to look a little further into it. I was under the impression that it was the same as the "second endowment" so that's what I googled. I wound up on mormonstories and Tom Philips' in particular. I don't get distinct impressions often, but I got a bad, BAD feeling there that that wasn't something I should linger on. Dehlin's work is definitly not inspired.Anyways I thought I come here and get some clarification instead of picking through the garbage.Just so I understand--the second endowment does not guarantee entry into the celestial kingdom? That's where the confusion is coming from I think Have not read all the comments, but as I came back to read I saw your question. The Second Endowment is an ordinance; that is all (I am not belittling ordinances, their importance, or value). There is something else that is not an ordinance that is between the individual and Jesus Christ; it is something different.
Storm Rider Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Hold on. This brings up another question:All members receive the Holy Ghost after baptism. There have been many who have lost their testimony/left the church--but we would never think of them as perdition...So what manifestation of the Holy Ghost are we talking about here? Is it a different witness than the one we would expect to accompany Moroni's promise? I recall a statement once that mentioned a difference between the power of the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost itself? Is the latter a more rare occurance? Perdition is reserved only for those who no longer live by faith but have chosen to fight against God and his plan for humanity. They have become like the Evil One and will be with him in Outer Darkness.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Just so I understand--the second endowment does not guarantee entry into the celestial kingdom? That's where the confusion is coming from I think The 2nd Annointing/Endowment does claim to guarantee exaltation (not merely entrance into the celestial kingdom). Men are ordained kings and priests unto God where previously they were ordained only to become such. Women are ordained priestesses and queens unto their husbands. Only the sin of shedding innocent blood would remove the blessing of exaltation from the individual. The concept of performing an ordinance that guarantees exaltation sounds crazy because it is. It doesn't honor the principles, of agency, justice, or the atonement.
SteveO Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 The 2nd Annointing/Endowment does claim to guarantee exaltation (not merely entrance into the celestial kingdom). Men are ordained kings and priests unto God where previously they were ordained only to become such. Women are ordained priestesses and queens unto their husbands. Only the sin of shedding innocent blood would remove the blessing of exaltation from the individual. The concept of performing an ordinance that guarantees exaltation sounds crazy because it is. It doesn't honor the principles, of agency, justice, or the atonement.That's the reasoning that brought me here in the first place. If a person is promised exaltation because they would never do anything to jeopardize it--but still have the agency to the. Go and reject it...but they were guaranteed exaltation to begin with BECAUSE they would never do thatUgh, just is kind of a paradox to me...
HappyJackWagon Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 That's the reasoning that brought me here in the first place. If a person is promised exaltation because they would never do anything to jeopardize it--but still have the agency to the. Go and reject it...but they were guaranteed exaltation to begin with BECAUSE they would never do thatUgh, just is kind of a paradox to me...And there's absolutely NO need for the 2A. It's not like people will be denied exaltation if the didn't receive it in this life. The 2A used to be done vicariously for the dead as well. What's the point in that? If there's no eternal need for the 2A you would need to ask yourself why it was introduced and practiced so liberally in the early church and why does it continue to this day? What's the purpose? One thing I've come to recognize in the church is a heirarchy of righteousness. With each level you become more righteous and a little more elite than those who haven't received it. There is strong social pressure to be part of the elite and the more elite you become the less likely you will be to give up the specialness of being included in the "in" group. BaptismAaronic PriesthoodA. Priesthood QuorumsM. PriesthoodM. Priesthood quorumsEndowmentSealingpolygamy (19th century)2A (mostly 19th century but continues)Council of 50Callings etc There are many levels of elitism within the church. With each level we attain we feel a little more special and a little more worthy. Perhaps a little more prideful.
CV75 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 That's the reasoning that brought me here in the first place. If a person is promised exaltation because they would never do anything to jeopardize it--but still have the agency to the. Go and reject it...but they were guaranteed exaltation to begin with BECAUSE they would never do thatUgh, just is kind of a paradox to me...Going back to the quote from Elder McConkie, because we are imperfect, we can backslide, or even not and still remain imperfect while on the straight and narrow path. So, one can be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise according to the Lord’s appointment and still commit sin. D&C 132:26 must be taken from the perspective that the threshold for what constitutes “any sin or transgression… and all manner of blasphemies” may be lower for the called, elected and sealed (sure) than the casual reader may understand them to be. It gets back to the idea of degree.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 The 2nd Annointing/Endowment does claim to guarantee exaltation (not merely entrance into the celestial kingdom). Men are ordained kings and priests unto God where previously they were ordained only to become such. Women are ordained priestesses and queens unto their husbands. Only the sin of shedding innocent blood would remove the blessing of exaltation from the individual. The concept of performing an ordinance that guarantees exaltation sounds crazy because it is. It doesn't honor the principles, of agency, justice, or the atonement.It is not just that you can deny the HG. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 It is not just that you can deny the HG.True, but according to D&C 132 a couple can commit all manner of blasphemies and still not lose their exaltation.So we'd need to go back and look at various definitions of what it means to "deny the holy ghost" to know how that would apply.
CV75 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 True, but according to D&C 132 a couple can commit all manner of blasphemies and still not lose their exaltation.So we'd need to go back and look at various definitions of what it means to "deny the holy ghost" to know how that would apply.D&C 132:26 must be taken from the perspective that the threshold for what constitutes “any sin or transgression… and all manner of blasphemies” may be lower for the called, elected and sealed (sure) than the casual reader may understand them to be. It gets back to the idea of degree. Going back to the quote from Elder McConkie, because we are imperfect, we can backslide, or even not and still remain imperfect while on the straight and narrow path. So, one can be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise according to the Lord’s appointment and still commit sin according to the light and knowledge he possesses and the expectations the Lord has of him.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) This is also evidenced in Joseph Smith stating that Judas did not commit suicide, but was actually killed by Peter under blood atonement to pay with his own blood for his own sin against Christ after receiving this higher ordinance.Say what? I've never heard this before, and it strikes me as weird, frankly. Can you document it? Edited to add: Checking the FairMormon wiki on this, I find that this has questionable provenance, comes from a second-hand source and results from a misinterpretation of sources. Edited July 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
cinepro Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Say what? I've never heard this before, and it strikes me as weird, frankly. Can you document it? And you thought you weren't going to learn anything new today... 2
cinepro Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) I was doing a little research and I was googling "second endowment". I wish I hadn't.But now that I have...How is it possible to fall away after your "calling and election isade sure"? It seems rather contradictory and almost defeats the purpose of doing it? I've been trying to wrap my head around it and it doesn't make sense. Are there examples of this occurring in church history? Did you come across this article in your research? If not, I highly recommend it. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V16N01_12.pdf I also find this exortation at the start of the "Eternal Life" lesson in the Doctrines of the Gospel teacher's manual to be inetersting: Caution: Exercise caution while discussing the doctrine of having our calling and election made sure. Avoid speculation. Use only the sources given here and in the student manual. Do not attempt in any way to discuss or answer questions about the second anointing. https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-teacher-manual?lang=eng Edited July 31, 2015 by cinepro
CV75 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 I also find this exortation at the start of the "Eternal Life" lesson in the Doctrines of the Gospel teacher's manual to be inetersting:Why is it interesting?
JLHPROF Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) Say what? I've never heard this before, and it strikes me as weird, frankly. Can you document it? Edited to add: Checking the FairMormon wiki on this, I find that this has questionable provenance, comes from a second-hand source and results from a misinterpretation of sources. And you thought you weren't going to learn anything new today... I agree that it is as much rumour/hearsay as many other things in Church history. That doesn't mean Joseph didn't teach it.Interestingly, in responding to "Claim 490" the wiki addresses only the Journal of Discourses quote.The quote where Joseph taught this (not Heber) is from the second source on the Wiki - the Reed Peck manuscript, which the Wiki fails to address at all. Is it questionable? Probably. Peck was an ex-member, and I don't know much else about the document. Maybe Joseph taught it, maybe he didn't, but the Fairwiki provided certainly doesn't address the source, and ignores claims that Joseph made the claim in a public speech given shortly after Sidney Rigdon's "Salt Sermon", although it does correctly state that Peck says Joseph claimed a revelation/conversation with the Apostle Peter where he learned the doctrine. Perhaps someone more familiar with the Peck document can provide more information. Edited August 1, 2015 by JLHPROF
Recommended Posts