Mormon Stories 8 part Series on Snuffer & Remnant Mormon's

[_Kishkumen]

So, I have been listening to Matt’s MoSto interview, and I am really impressed with him. The guy really knows his stuff, far better than most anyone I have encountered, in fact, and he was sincerely pursuing the blessings promised in the scriptures. Where does that land him? Predictably in hot water with LDS leaders. I agree with him about the “follow the Brethren” nonsense. In my view, he is right. He makes the proper distinction between the Church and the Gospel, and he does not accept ecclesiolatry in place of following Christ.

Here’s the problem: there is a historical case to be made for the Brethren’s position. As I have argued in recent months, the cult of the leader goes back to the Second Anointing. The idea is that through this ordinance, in which some are ordained rulers in Israel, one’s calling and election is made sure and their right to govern in Israel is established. The Anointed are little gods on earth, and their words become the divine law for God’s Church. Their consensus, the consensus of the Anointed Quorum, is the foundation of the modern LDS Church’s apostolic government. The idea, communicated in the Book of Mormon, that they are given the sealing power because God knows they will never misuse that power, is at the root of the Quorum’s confidence that they will never lead the Church astray. The fact that they are a Quorum is an insurance policy against individual error. It was once taught that such anointed persons would be removed (from life) by God if their error required such.

A lot of this stuff has been sublimated, and people don’t know about it, but it explains very well the foundation of the leader worship in Mormonism.

[Guest]

Here’s the problem: there is a historical case to be made for the Brethren’s position. As I have argued in recent months, the cult of the leader goes back to the Second Anointing. The idea is that through this ordinance, in which some are ordained rulers in Israel, one’s calling and election is made sure and their right to govern in Israel is established. The Anointed are little gods on earth, and their words become the divine law for God’s Church. Their consensus, the consensus of the Anointed Quorum, is the foundation of the modern LDS Church’s apostolic government. The idea, communicated in the Book of Mormon, that they are given the sealing power because God knows they will never misuse that power, is at the root of the Quorum’s confidence that they will never lead the Church astray. The fact that they are a Quorum is an insurance policy against individual error. It was once taught that such anointed persons would be removed (from life) by God if their error required such.

A lot of this stuff has been sublimated, and people don’t know about it, but it explains very well the foundation of the leader worship in Mormonism.

I am pretty sure the Book of Mormon says a lot about secret combinations also. I wonder how general membership would feel if the found out about the existence of a super secret quorum that was ruling the church from behind the scenes?

There is a case to be made that the Gadiantor Robbers (the anointed quorum) are right now sitting inside their Great and Spacious Building in SLC (the conference center) overseeing their organization of the Whore of Babylon (the City Creek Mall).

Ironic isn't it?

[_RockSlider]

The idea is that through this ordinance, in which some are ordained rulers in Israel, one’s calling and election is made sure and their right to govern in Israel is established. The Anointed are little gods on earth, and their words become the divine law for God’s Church.

I've never heard this said or in print about the second anointing, calling election etc.

[_Fence Sitter]

I've never heard this said or in print about the second anointing, calling election etc.

I am not sure who it was but someone in writing defended the BY power grab as legitimate because he and the twelve were part of the group that had received their second anointing.

[Guest]

So, I have been listening to Matt’s MoSto interview, and I am really impressed with him. The guy really knows his stuff, far better than most anyone I have encountered, in fact, and he was sincerely pursuing the blessings promised in the scriptures. Where does that land him? Predictably in hot water with LDS leaders. I agree with him about the “follow the Brethren” nonsense. In my view, he is right. He makes the proper distinction between the Church and the Gospel, and he does not accept ecclesiolatry in place of following Christ.

Here’s the problem: there is a historical case to be made for the Brethren’s position. As I have argued in recent months, the cult of the leader goes back to the Second Anointing. The idea is that through this ordinance, in which some are ordained rulers in Israel, one’s calling and election is made sure and their right to govern in Israel is established. The Anointed are little gods on earth, and their words become the divine law for God’s Church. Their consensus, the consensus of the Anointed Quorum, is the foundation of the modern LDS Church’s apostolic government. The idea, communicated in the Book of Mormon, that they are given the sealing power because God knows they will never misuse that power, is at the root of the Quorum’s confidence that they will never lead the Church astray. The fact that they are a Quorum is an insurance policy against individual error. It was once taught that such anointed persons would be removed (from life) by God if their error required such.

A lot of this stuff has been sublimated, and people don’t know about it, but it explains very well the foundation of the leader worship in Mormonism.

But key to Mormonism is that it has always put a man or men in a position of authority between its members and Christ. Snuffer's ingenuousness is convincing uber Mormons that they don't need this filter and can interact with Christ mano a mano. This also is it's appeal for these extremely devout Mormons

I've been fascinated by both of Dehlin's Remnant interviewee's, The Strong's and Matt. To me, both of these interviews are mesmerizing for the manner in which they have captured the mental justifications for why these Uber Mormon’s were led into apostasy from traditional modern day patriarchal Mormonism. It’s a case study in Feelings Based Religion and how these human emotions can be molded by perhaps well-meaning individuals and with a fanatical compulsion to gain an even deeper emotional confirmation of their cherished beliefs than what they were able to achieve through traditional modern Mormonism. Their compulsion for these emotional confirmations is their drug of choice, it’s what they crave and seek after….this coupled with a desire for more knowledge, a deeper understanding and an even greater devotion to what they perceive as Smith original intent to building their Emerald City they call Zion, then what they were able to achieve with Mormonism. This is what drives s them, supported by their emotional confirmations.

When I contrast their justification and motivations against what led me out of the church our reasons couldn’t have been more divergent. Mine rest squarely in empirical truth, logic, information, facts and the lack of supporting evidence in LDS truth claims. Whereas for these people none of those things seem to matter in the least, in fact they seem to have navigated and built up justifications to either overlook, ignore and find peace with my issues.

The human brain is an amazing organ, one that is capable of processing similar information and allowing those who process it to come to such completly different conclusions. Which is why one must always protect oneself with a constant skepticism of fanciful claims, demand testable evidence and an ever questioning mind. Otherwise the human mind will settle on what it craves the most …certainty and clarity while ignoring discomfirmatory facts, which is just another way of saying confirmation bias.

For the Strong’s and Matt their sincere deeply held desire for more than what the corporate, correlated church offered them led them down a different rabbit hole than the one I took…but both holes led us out of Mormonism. It's ironic that Matt recognises the consequences of his choice to aposticize from mainstreem Mormonism when he said I better be right....

[_RockSlider]

I've never heard this said or in print about the second anointing, calling election etc.

I am not sure who it was but someone in writing defended the BY power grab as legitimate because he and the twelve were part of the group that had received their second anointing.

I can see the council of the 50 being guilty of this claim, but the second anointing was given to many and the list of those who were given it were public/published up to through the 1940's or later if I remember right. Even today Temple Presidents, I assume Mission Presidents etc. regularly receive it. Any of the above mentioned that are/were not part of the 70 or greater, I don't see how this can be said about them.

[_Craig Paxton]

I can see the council of the 50 being guilty of this claim, but the second anointing was given to many and the list of those who were given it were public/published up to through the 1940's or later if I remember right. Even today Temple Presidents, I assume Mission Presidents etc. regularly receive it. Any of the above mentioned that are/were not part of the 70 or greater, I don't see how this can be said about them.

Wasn't Tom Phillips a stake president when he received it? Or had he been placed in perhaps an area presidency? Either way he wasn't a GA

[_Kishkumen]

Well, I’m not talking about an ongoing organization so much as the original basis of the current claim to authority of the apostles. This springs from consiglieri’s discussion of the apolostolic coup. My research led me to think that the underlying authority of the apostolic claim is the Second Anointing as given in the Anointed Quorum in Nauvoo. The Nauvoo understanding of what this Anointing meant helps us understand subsequent theology surrounding the leadership and its authority, including a kind of implicit infallibility. Having received their Second Anointing, and joining a leadership group consisting of leaders with the same blessings, underlies and supports the idea that the leaders command obedience and are collectively infallible. How can a group that has received such blessings lead the members in a manner that runs contrary to God’s will?

See what I mean?

[_Fence Sitter]

I can see the council of the 50 being guilty of this claim, but the second anointing was given to many and the list of those who were given it were public/published up to through the 1940's or later if I remember right. Even today Temple Presidents, I assume Mission Presidents etc. regularly receive it. Any of the above mentioned that are/were not part of the 70 or greater, I don't see how this can be said about them.

Going off a poor memory here Rock, but I believe the argument for succession through BY and the 12 was that none of the other claimants (Rigdon, Strange, Nauvoo HC and so on) had received the 2nd anointing, and that the 2nd anointing actually gave a fullness of the priesthood keys no one else had, so only the 12 constituted a fully empowered quorum.
.

[_Kishkumen]

The SA was given in three degrees. The top degree belonged to the prophet and his spouse. The middle was given to the leaders. The bottom was given to regular members.