With some recent discussion on this board about the Second Annointing, I have thought about some of the implications and issues and realized that this ceremony opens the church up to some public scruteny that might be easy to initiate.

For the leaders and members of other religions, it's absolute blasphemy.

If an active church member with a current temple recommend were to push publicly for their own SA, how would the church react? If the church disciplines the person, they would have to recognize publicly that the ceremony does exist, while defending both the practice and their decision to keep that club private, even within the church. Either that, or they would have to lie and deny that anyone else has received this ceremony. If someone pushed hard enough, the church might have to abandon the practice, as they did the endowment death-threats. Aw... poor GAs, no more guaranteed godhood, shucks.

If done right, the whole 'guaranteed godhood' thing could be exposed as the scandal it is. How many blacks have been through this ceremony since 1978? Why is it a secret and only available to certain people? (asks the news reporter). Are the actual recipiants of the SA really more worthy than all of the other temple-recommend holders who are denied access to receive that ceremony? Some reports are that the GAs don't have enough time to perform this ceremony for many people. Why does the church find a way for regular endowments and not for the person's SA? Are all of the other temple-recommend holders somehow less worthy? Somehow, I am sure that the narcissism and undeserved elitism will surface as topics in these public discussions. Why do only higher church leaders get the SA? Are plumbers and fast-food workers somehow less worthy than successful businessmen and their wives? Why is there class discrimination going on here? Why are people like Tom Phillips asked to lie to their own family members when invited to get this ceremony? What is a good reason to keep all of this a secret, amongst even 'worthy' church members who are excluded from this secret club?

Okay, so if the average church member can't get the SA, why not publicly disparage it? If you don't disparage anything else about the church, how can they discipline you for disparaging something the church won't even admit exists? If they then take away your temple recommend, you sue them in a court of law for discrimination, to get it back. Let all of those details go on to the public record, and a non-mormon jury can decide what is reasonable and fair. The church's whole reputation and tax-exempt status would then be on trial. Maybe someone like Tom Philips could testify as a witness that the church does still practice this ceremony, at least as of the time that he went through it.

When someone like Kathy Kelly says publicly that she deserves to hold the priesthood, the church can just publicly say "no". When she persists, they just excommunicate her. When someone publicly says "I have a valid temple recommend and I would like to have my Second Annointing", the church might say "ahm... say what?... I don't know that we teach that". Then they have to start lieing or telling the truth. Either way, the response would be priceless.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2017 07:35AM by azsteve.

Your idea has merit, imo...

Great post. I have often wondered why the second anointing ceremony hasn't become more of an issue. I just assume that secrecy, power, and fear comes into play.

Is the only way a woman can receive a second anointing, is to be the wife of a man who receives it?

You have a good point, azsteve, that this could become a racial issue.

The more I think about it, the church leaders in Salt Lake have no right to offer special ceremonies to a special class of people in the church, while denying average members the same privileges. From what Tom Philips said, Jesus doesn't really show up at the ceremony. What right do false Prophets and Apostles have to guarantee godhood to anyone. To pick certain people and then have those people nominate others is not inspired at all. It just (once again) perpetuates cult behavior.

It is not secret. You just need to understand what is said in the intro lecture to the endowment

Brothers and Sisters, if you are true and faithful to all the convents you shall make this day, the day will come when you are called up and anointed kings and priests, queens and priestesses to the most high god; whereas you are now only anointed to become such.

close if not word for word.

Yeah, most people expect that other ceremony to be available, perhaps during the mellinium or after.

If the manual said not to talk about the SA, then enough people know about it to make such mention worth mentioning in the manual. Some people in the church even know it by name. I knew about the Calling and Election Made Sure when I was in the church, but I didn't know the ceremony by name. I imagine there must be quite a few people who have had the SA and who just keep their mouth shut, least they screw up their guaranteed deal. Look at how many people don't talk about the penalties, and those are negative. Yet it is a secret that was largely kept until internet boards like RFM cropped up and a few people were willing to talk about them. But the SA, it's probably the best kept secret of all. Only one person on earth who has been through the ceremony talks about it publicly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2017 10:48PM by azsteve.

This post made me think about the phrase "...calling and ELECTION made sure." There is a vote?

I thought the SA was a kind of diplomatic immunity. As Tom Philips will tell you, it isn't. It's just another promise the church makes that doesn't actually mean anything.

I hope the SA question gains traction, but I suspect an LDS story without a sexual component is not interesting enough.

For example, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall..." 2 Peter 1.10.

"Elect" is not disputed much, but there are different interpretive slants on it. Basically, it means "set aside" or "ordained" for the Kingdom of Heaven. This was a big issue for John Calvin, who tied his doctrine of Predestination to it--but that's an entirely different (and contentious) issue.

It used to say "erection," but someone got it wrong once, and the word took off.

This could be a very powerful argument, in convincing cult members that Mormonism is man-invented, and not of God. Clearly, how could anyone believe these are God's rules?

My exit of the cult began when I wasn't granted a temple divorce, or a "cancellation of sealing," or a "temple clearance", to I could marry my TBM second husband in the temple. (The names changed for the temple divorce, over the years.) We were always faithful TBM's and tried for many years, with many bishoprics and stake presidencies. It didn't matter that my temple husband had beaten me almost to death. No temple divorce for me.

However, a friend of mine got a "cancellation of sealing", because she and her husband fell out of love, and the process took only a few weeks. Her father was close friends with Gordon B. Hinckley.

Duh. Like the proverbial donkey that got hit over the head with a baseball bat, that got my attention! The mormon cult was not of God!

This "second anointing" thing would hit a lot more people, and hit them where it would hurt enough to get their attention. The whole temple-money-elitist-stratified-Heaven mentality is anti-Christian, anti-love.

It would never go to court. But the ignorance of the general body of members about the SA is easy to see.

I was told I could never mention it via the teaching manual. Yes, they had me teaching the Temple Prep course before I even went. It said DO NOT mention Second Anointing.

The idea that someone's future is "sealed" regardless of what they do after the ceremony i find highly disturbing. What if they murdered someone? Cheated on their partner? It doesn't matter because they had a ceremony? WTF.

I also heard only highly ranking Mormons are eligible and it's done in secret. Also, if you're not Sealed, (ie spouse not Mormon)..too bad, you will never get anointed

apparently, if you are a "person of color", you also will not likely receive the second anointing. Witness the current makeup of the leading quorums of the church-still a sea of inter-related, white Ephraimites.

Wait, did I read correctly that you were teaching the temple prep class before you attended for the first time?

That's so crazy! That would be like hiring a bunch of never served a mission college students to work at the MTC instead of hiring some RM's.

We need to have a black couple with a current temple recommend each, make an issue over their wanting to have the SA ceremony themselves, and who are willing to go to court if the church bullies or mistreats them, or exercises racial prejudice against them. I am thinking they should go public as they ask the questions of church leaders for the first time. For the church to use "vexation" as a legal defense after they themselves exercise racist policies could be a difficult thing to justify in a lawsuit. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to exercise racial discrimination, even if they do it in secret.

In addition, if such a lawsuit could get the church to admit under oath, whether or not they practice this second annointing ceremony and whether or not the ceremony is real, the lawsuut would be successful, even if that is all the further it gets. A prophet could never say again with any credibility "I don't know that we teach that", when a reporter asks if mortal men can become gods, according to what the church believes. Why does the church not mention the SA, in their essay entitled "becomming like god"? Another thought: in the SA, the woman has the priesthood conferred upon her. She holds the priesthood thereafter. Yet an average woman who doesn't get the SA, can be excommunicated for not accepting the fact that she will not be allowed to hold the priesthood.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2017 11:42PM by azsteve.

GA's didn't have the time to ordain all those new bishops, either, so they changed the procedure so that they're all ordained locally. So if they wanted to give the SA to everyone, they could dispatch some lesser person to do it.

yeah, and there are plenty of ordinance rooms available in the empty temples, no waiting! heheh...

When I was TBM, I had a friend who had been born into mormon royalty. Her grandfather had the second anointing.

He was promised that ALL of his progeny would go to the Celestial Kingdom. This friend took that very seriously. She had several (more than I can count) affairs throughout her marriage, and I suspect she's still at it in her 50's. Meanwhile her husband climbs the mormon ladder, to a point. Her children are a train wreck. They're intelligent, well educated, lots of money, but mentally and emotionally crippled. The friend goes through life doing as she pleases and thinking she's at the top of the pile in mormon land. It's a pathetic situation that looks pretty from the outside.

Azsteve's first post proposes that an individual member take this on as a crusade--kind of like a grass roots effort. That's one possible strategy, but it's got some weaknesses. It's pretty easy for the church to shut one person up at the ward or stake level.

Another option would be to make that individual's quest the focus of some in depth, exploratory reporting by the Salt Lake Tribune. This combo would pack a punch.

Don't know what the Tribune's appetite for antagonizing the church is these days, but does anyone have any contacts within the SLT reporting staff with whom they could discuss the idea?

Years ago I was in an online discussion with a TBM who was
saying that the Endowment ceremony wasn't "secret" because the
Morg publicly talked about its existence. The argument was
about whether or not there were secret things in Mormonism. I
asked if the Second Anointing would qualify as a "secret
ceremony."

He asked "what's that?" I told him to ask his Bishop.

He asked his bishop. His bishop had never heard of it. So he
asked around and one of the high priests of the ward pulled him
aside and said that yes, it did exist but that he (the high
priest guy) wouldn't say any more. I pointed out that I thought
that qualified as "secret."

I didn't get a reply, but a few months later I noticed the same
guy proudly claiming online that there were no secrets in
Mormonism.

How can anyone say there are no secrets in mormonism? In the endowment ceremony itself, everyone is sworn to secracy and they use the word "secret" (not just "sacred") in the words they speak in that part of the endowment ceremony. Cased closed. Mormonism has secrets.

Went to chat in mormon.org and asked about the second anointment and they had no idea lol

From reading (or from podcasts), I understand that after the big 2A, you can put blessings and curses on people.

Curses! Nothing screams cult quite like that does!!!!

Oh, and supposedly, you can decide how long you want to live on the Earth.

I suppose all that fun cursing folks could keep ya going for quite a while!

After the second annointing, the church leaders are supposed to be able to live as long as they want to, and in good health. So.I wonder why a majority of the so-called 'Prophets' decide that they want to live only a normal life-span, often spending their last ten years or so with dementia. They must say early-on "oh yeah, I choose to spend my last ten years not having much of a clue about anything, and having my handlers prop me up like a puppet twice per year at General Conference. Where do I sign up for that?"

Yes, Harold G. Hillam, whom I knew as a healthy 71 year old, died aged 77.

The Deseret News did not give a reason for death. He died of ALS a particularly nasty disease especially in the last 2-3 years. Why would such a faithful servant, who dedicated his life to the church, warrant such an excruciating end.

Because it is all made up nonsense.

From the ALS website:-

"Most people with ALS live 2-5 years after their first signs of disease. About 10% of people with ALS survive at least 10 years. This variable rate of disease progression makes prognosis difficult to predict and therapies challenging to develop".

Tom,
Do you know anything about the 3rd and 4th Anointings that Grant Palmer touched on? Allegedly the 3rd gives you goodhood, and the 4th puts you in the godhead.

Kathleen

I reviewed Grant's interview, he does not mention 3rd and 4th anointings. He mentions the 2nd and then Joseph's ordinance of the godhood and godhead. If I have misunderstood this, please let me know.

It was made clear to me, at the time, that the 2nd Anointing was it. Any further ordination was for the afterlife unless it was brought forward to this life. I can't think of anything beyond godhood and being a member of a godhead, which is mentioned in the SA.

Thanks, Tom. :)

It was big fun at the Kirtland temple for Horny Joe and his cronies to get drunk on wine and take turns pronouncing curses on their enemies.

Mormonism is a small, cultish sect. After polygamy "officially" ended and Utah became a state, the public lost interest. The theology is so strange and preposterous that people just don't believe it and think you are making it up.

I dont know if im ready to know the details of yet another secret temple ceremony.