krose wrote:Here's something that jumped out at me:
thou shalt have power over thy Posterity & shall Save all of them
Wow. I think the odds are pretty good that at least one of my ancestors had this ordinance, since they go back to the group that consorted with the First Prophet. Looks to me that this might give me a free pass, in spite of my apostate life. In your face, Satan! I know you're controlling me now, but that doesn't necessarily mean you'll get me in the hereafter. ;-)
I think you are covered, Krose. I recall reading about this in a patriarchal blessing of your upline, either Ezekiel or Joel. Not only was exaltation guaranteed, but I distinctly remember the man being blessed that his entire posterity would remain true to the faith. Hmmmm.
Let me see if I can go back and find that blessing. I read it several years ago.
"I think one of the great mysteries of the gospel is that anyone still believes it." Sethbag, MADB, Feb 22 2008
skippy the dead wrote:In addition, the extra layer of secrecy is somewhat of a concern to me. Although we may be counseled to not discuss the content of the endowment ceremony, we do not have to hide the fact that we are going to the temple to receive it. Why would the church put such a cloak of secrecy around the rite, if it is something that would be considered to be a great honor?
According to the opening post, this is because there would be so many members clamoring to have the ordinance that the apostles would be swamped.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
skippy the dead wrote:In addition, the extra layer of secrecy is somewhat of a concern to me. Although we may be counseled to not discuss the content of the endowment ceremony, we do not have to hide the fact that we are going to the temple to receive it. Why would the church put such a cloak of secrecy around the rite, if it is something that would be considered to be a great honor?
According to the opening post, this is because there would be so many members clamoring to have the ordinance that the apostles would be swamped.
I just don't get this.
In the first place, since this is only done by invitation, I doubt that they would be overly harassed by the members, except for a few nuts out there.
Second, for the few nuts that harass them, they simply state that God has not given them permission yet. When they have received permission from God, the apostles will contact them. Case closed.
However, I can see the wisdom in keeping this secret in that the LDS church doesn't need any more false levels of righteousness. They already have non-Member, inactive member, semi-active member, fully active/no TR and fully active w/TR. Do they really need to add CaEMS to that list? One more way to separate the members into haves and have-nots? I think it's a good move to keep it a secret for this reason.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Trinity wrote:My father is remarrying outside of the temple in March, however, and I would think that if he had been through the CAEMS he would have done the marriage ceremony inside the walls of the temple. He is marrying but is not being sealed to another woman as she is sealed to her first husband and dad was sealed to my mom.
None of my business really, but of curiosity, why is he not having a "for time only" ceremony inside the temple instead of getting married outside it?
Not all the weddings that take place inside temples involve sealings.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Runtu wrote:A couple of things. Assuming the account is true, it seems rather anticlimactic. And if the guy really has had his calling and election made sure, what consequence is there to spilling the beans? Does that constitute denying the Holy Ghost?
Probably.
In whose eyes? The eyes of church leaders or members? Or the eyes of the HG (assuming the existence of the same)?
Maybe there's an HG, but he thinks this ritual, and this particular church, is manmade nonsense. In that case, there's no denial of the HG at all.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Skippy wrote: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
krose wrote:Here's something that jumped out at me:
thou shalt have power over thy Posterity & shall Save all of them
Wow. I think the odds are pretty good that at least one of my ancestors had this ordinance, since they go back to the group that consorted with the First Prophet. Looks to me that this might give me a free pass, in spite of my apostate life.
Yes, this is an interesting aspect of the Second Anointing, in that it is supposed to cover posterity. But when you come to think about it, for believing Christians, that was supposed to be true for everyone who lived after Christ, that the atonement was supposed to cover everyone.
So why would a believing Christian, or one who professed to be, believe the atonement was insufficient and another ordinance would need to take its place? Do you think everyday believing Mormons even give that a thought?
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.