Firsthand Accounts of the Second Anointing

[_The Nehor]

The problem is on these boards people are always asking questions that I think can only be answered by revelation. Then they get annoyed when I say that's where I got it.

Revelation from whom? A prophet for the benefit of the whole? Or a single individual who is only supposed to have revelation for the benefit of himself/herself?

It's doubtful even from an LDS point of view that your "revelation" extends to the general public, on message boards or otherwise.

Which is why no one is obligated to listen to a single thing I say. A great relief to me....and probably everyone else too.

[_the road to hana]

Essentially, if this account is accurate, there is definitely a secret caste system in place in the church, which would seem to run counter to the basic principles taught by Jesus.

This is what concerns me as well. It goes against the Beatitudes taught be Jesus, himself:
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Matthew 5:5

Something about "the last shall be first" seems appropriate here, as well as the suggestion that it is more difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Or how about Luke 14:11-15?

The way it's currently set up, it seems more to be like being knighted, or having an honorary title bestowed, in recognition for services rendered (including generosity), and sets up a secret society within a secret society. From a New Testament point of view, it would seem to make far more sense if this blessing were given to the least of these, the poor, the meek, the humble, and the oppressed.

I'm not sure I follow you here.

From the OP, it seemed like this guy was very meek and humble. It doesn't say anything about his financial status. After his initial meeting, he pondered whether he was worthy of such a blessing. When asked to name potential future recipients, he had a struggle to make sure the names he submitted were worthy.

While it might not be universally true, it's generally well known that those who rise to the position of leadership within the LDS Church (stake president, mission president, temple president, General Authority) are frequently people who've been more successful than less. Successful businessmen in the church who show high levels of activity generally have that rewarded with callings that reflect it. It's unlikely the author of the OP is the wealthiest man in the church in the same lines of a Mitt Romney, Bill Marriott or Jon Huntsman, but it's also unlikely he's among the poorest of the poor.

I'd argue that it's precisely because he is a person of good intent and heart that he chooses to share his experience to illuminate the difficulties he had with it to others. And I'd also argue that those who get "nominated" to receive the blessing are not generally those who are on Church welfare or struggling financially. The church needs a way to bestow an honor on those it chooses to recognize, and wrapping it up as a special exaltation present makes it all the more special.

[_Runtu]

Well, for starters, if the church were actually true I would have expected that they would have seen Christ. Whether official or not, I too had always understood that the Calling and Election Made Sure was performed by the Savior himself. For TBMs being annointed and having one's feet washed by an Apostle would be pretty heady stuff, but it's still not Jesus.

My mission president talked about this in one of our daily "devotionals" before getting to work in the mission office. He said that once you receive this ordinance, you have the right to a personal visitation and ministry from the Savior, but the ordinance was done by an apostle. So, no surprise here for me.

This seems like quite a retention booster.

I'm not so sure. What happens to all those people who have this ordinance and then the Savior never comes?

Is there any wonder those little knowing smiles you get from some of the old-timers if topics critical of the church come up? It's like they know something you don't. How could one fail to feel pretty confident and "in the know" when some upstart began speaking about Joseph Smith in critical and negative ways, when one has been annointed an actual King and Priest to God, by an Apostle? When one has been blessed to actually be a God after the resurrection? When one has been guaranteed a spot in the Celestial Kingdom, while still alive?

That's I think the reason it's done: to give people the sense of being "in the know" and in the inner circles of the church. Has to be a huge ego boost.

Very interesting stuff. How can inconvenient facts about Joseph Smith and church history even touch someone who has been told they've made it, and they've already got their ticket to the Celestial Kingdom.

Just goes to show you how powerful Satan is.

[_The Nehor]

No one in the Church has the power to condemn someone to Outer Darkness and our own scriptures limit our punishment to excommunication.

Ahh, but thanks to the CaEMS, we now have a host of members who have the power to curse. So, punishment is NOT limited to excommunication.

True, but if they curse someone it's then God's problem to do the actual damage. Similar to healing. We can pronounce someone healed but unless God effects the healing it's empty words.

[_The Nehor]

While it might not be universally true, it's generally well known that those who rise to the position of leadership within the LDS Church (stake president, mission president, temple president, General Authority) are frequently people who've been more successful than less. Successful businessmen in the church who show high levels of activity generally have that rewarded with callings that reflect it. It's unlikely the author of the OP is the wealthiest man in the church in the same lines of a Mitt Romney, Bill Marriott or Jon Huntsman, but it's also unlikely he's among the poorest of the poor.

I'd argue that it's precisely because he is a person of good intent and heart that he chooses to share his experience to illuminate the difficulties he had with it to others. And I'd also argue that those who get "nominated" to receive the blessing are not generally those who are on Church welfare or struggling financially. The church needs a way to bestow an honor on those it chooses to recognize, and wrapping it up as a special exaltation present makes it all the more special.

Or it's an actual ordinance and revelation reveals who gets it.

[_the road to hana]

While it might not be universally true, it's generally well known that those who rise to the position of leadership within the LDS Church (stake president, mission president, temple president, General Authority) are frequently people who've been more successful than less. Successful businessmen in the church who show high levels of activity generally have that rewarded with callings that reflect it. It's unlikely the author of the OP is the wealthiest man in the church in the same lines of a Mitt Romney, Bill Marriott or Jon Huntsman, but it's also unlikely he's among the poorest of the poor.

I'd argue that it's precisely because he is a person of good intent and heart that he chooses to share his experience to illuminate the difficulties he had with it to others. And I'd also argue that those who get "nominated" to receive the blessing are not generally those who are on Church welfare or struggling financially. The church needs a way to bestow an honor on those it chooses to recognize, and wrapping it up as a special exaltation present makes it all the more special.

Or it's an actual ordinance and revelation reveals who gets it.

What's your best guess on how many of the poorest, most humble members of the church have actually received this ordinance?

[_The Nehor]

What's your best guess on how many of the poorest, most humble members of the church have actually received this ordinance?

I think many of the humblest have received it. Why are you tying wealth to humility?

[_Sethbag]

It is interesting that he had no problem keeping the normal temple rituals a secret, but as soon as he has to keep the CaEMS a secret, he's suddenly uncomfortable with it.

Why do you think there is a difference there?

I don't think that in this account the poster was so much uncomfortable about keeping the details of his CAEMS experience secret, so much as having to explain to people who would know that he was going away for the weekend where he was going without them knowing he was going to be at the temple. When you go through the temple for your own endowment you may keep the contents of the endowment secret, but at least you don't have to lie to people about where it is you're going and what it is (in general) that you'll be doing there.

I'm not sure I would have felt as uncomfortable about it. I think if I were scheduled to have my CAEMS I would have less trouble being less than forthcoming with relatives about where I planned to be that Sunday. They wouldn't need to know, and I had been asked by a General Authority not to tell, so as a TBM I wouldn't have a problem being somewhat vague about my plans.

[_the road to hana]

I don't know how many of you here are following this, but a former Mission President posting as "Anointed One" has posted a firsthand account of his experience with the Second Anointing on RFM.

Second Annointing Post

I'd love to see the scriptural basis for this. Perhaps I should rephrase that: I'd love to see the scriptural basis for this, exempting the D&C and POGP, neither of which do I believe are God-breathed.

I'm going back on an earlier post on this thread to respond.

Harmony, it's likely the church/Joseph Smith bases this ordinance on two events recorded in the New Testament, Christ washing the feet of his apostles, and Mary anointing him with oil. They believe that she was his spouse (or one of his spouses), and was sealing him up for his own burial, and in that sense, they believe that's what women who are receiving this ordinance are doing for their husbands.

The footwashing part still takes place in many Christian churches. Some only do it during the Easter season, and others do it more often (lots of Anabaptist denominations included).

At the proper time, designated people wrap towels around their waists and begin to wash the feet of another person. As soon as the washing and drying are complete, the two people who have shared the feetwashing exchange an embrace and/or ‘holy kiss’ or kiss of love (Rom 16:16; 1 Pet 5:14). This is often accompanied by simple words of blessing such as ‘God bless you’. The towel is moved from the one who has served to the one who has been served. Then the one whose feet have been washed proceeds in like manner to wash the feet of the next person and so on until all have participated.

Traditionally, men and women are seated at separate tables. Some congregations are adopting alternative models to allow men and women or families to be seated together. Whatever the seating arrangement, an atmosphere of devotion and reverence will be fostered by a room lighted by candles and the use of either instrumental music or congregational singing. Although some choose to move to separate rooms for feetwashing, this has a tendency to disrupt the flow of the service and break the sense of community.

http://anabaptistnetwork.com/node/312

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feet_washing

The bit about having husbands and wives go to their own sealing room to complete the second part of the ritual on its own is interesting, because it allows the two perform the ritual without any intermediary, almost in the same sense that some churches traditionally believe that husbands and wives marry each other before God, and that any minister is there primarily as a witness. It also adds an element of intimacy and privacy to the ritual that I'm sure the recipients appreciate.

One of the more interesting parts of the original poster's account was, I thought, that the ritual took place on a Sunday, a time when most LDS believe the temples are closed and no ordinances are performed. The suggestion that the practice had been discontinued in David O. McKay's time, and then renewed, is also fascinating.

[_the road to hana]

What's your best guess on how many of the poorest, most humble members of the church have actually received this ordinance?

I think many of the humblest have received it. Why are you tying wealth to humility?

I think it was Jesus who did that.