1. The Church has invested millions (if not billions) in temples, yet it appears that temple attendance is abysmally low. If your rank-and-file member was told about the opportunity to receive a “Second Annointing”, you can rest assured that they would be beating down the doors of the temple to get it, especially if it meant that you were guaranteed a place in heaven and the ability to choose when you die. Hell, I bet some ex-members would want to rejoin just to see what it was all about.

2. I think that Benjamin Franklin said that the only way to keep a secret shared between three men was if two of the men were dead. The fact that no one in recent history has talked about it anywhere (in either the Bloggernacle or the exmo spheres) tends to show that it isn’t really occurring. The Internet just about guarantees that any practice anywhere is going to get some air time.

3. The history of the Second Annointing is readily available to anyone with Internet access and a basic understanding of Mormonism. It wasn’t much of a secret back when it was practiced in earnest, and the general content is known. It wouldn’t be difficult to read a few history books, plug in the names of a few GAs and Voila! The Second Annointing comes to life.

4. There simply isn’t any evidence besides this person’s statement. I need more corroboration than an anonymous poster on a website hostile to the Mormon church. Parts of his story (unrelated to the Second Annointing) seem to ring untrue, like the part about how he was going to choose to be a Mission President, but just wanted to learn more about a certain aspect of Mormonism before accepting. It seems atypical of the experiences of other mission presidents that I have known. It doesn’t make the account untrue; however, it does raise some questions in my mind.

On the other hand, I could be totally wrong. It could very well be happening in temples around the world. I could have received it myself and, hoping to deflect criticism and obfuscate the truth, I raise weak arguments against someone else’s creditability.

But I get the feeling that the Second Annointing has gone the way of the dynastic sealing.

1. I knew about the Second Anointing as a member but figured that I wasn’t worthy of it so I wasn’t going to demand it. Perhaps I’m naïve, but I think most members would accept that only the highest ranking members would receive this ordinance.

Also, the spike in temple attendance would probably only be temporary since it’s a one-shot deal. Aside from that, what real benefit is there to the church if people attend more often? The real concern of the church is that people hold temple recommends which means that people are actively participating and that they pay their tithing. Whether or not they use their temple recommend doesn’t matter as much, except perhaps to promote loyalty.

2. I don’t run across a lot of former stake, mission, and temple presidents in the ex-mo crowd, so perhaps accounts of the Second Anointing would be more common if stake presidents left the church more often. Granted I don’t hang out in a lot of ex-mo crowds.

4. The bit about studying more in preparation for a future responsibility paralleled my studying in preparation for fatherhood. A lot of people seem drawn to further study for one reason or another and learn more than they bargained for. This isn’t as suspicious to me as to you.

I obviously think the account could be true. I don’t have solid evidence that it is, so I really can’t rely on it too heavily. Something about it rang true to me. It felt like how the church would handle it to me. I’m probably biased to think it is true.

In any case, the Second Anointing is an interesting and obscure chapter in Mormon history (and perhaps in its present) that members should know more about.

Taking the next step and creating an inner ring, as C.S. Lewis called it, is entirely different. When the stamp collectors start thinking that they are better than coin collectors, that’s a problem. I characterize this malignant kind of group by the belief that group members are smarter, better, worthier, etc. simply because outsiders “look different”, “don’t know our secrets”, “don’t act like we do”, “don’t think like we do”, “are a different race/gender/ethnicity”, “are less than human”, etc.

The second kind of group is a big problem, and it’s common in the LDS church to believe that the Saints are better than the Ain’ts. Similar to some segments of Judaism, some Mormons believe they are God’s chosen. I have been told from my youth that God foreordained me to be Mormon because of my valiance before I was born. In other words, I am Mormon because I was better than non-Mormons in the pre-existence. Further, temple attending Mormons often believe that they have proven more worthy of God’s blessing than those who haven’t “gone to the temple”. I think it’s pretty clear that for some members the LDS church is a big ego trip whose inner circles are delineated by rituals.

Inasmuch as people can make the LDS church the first kind of group, that’s great, but they have an uphill battle to ignore a lot of that culture and doctrine of exclusivity in the church.

I for one was aware of the Second A but really didn’t want it for myself … at least not yet.

Now you’ve seen into my soul and found what may be my oldest and most basic failure of faith. Yes, Mormonism scares the shit out of me even with its promises.

If anyone wants to check out the validity of my account they only need ask the apostle and seventy present where they were and what they were doing on the date mentioned. They can either confirm (that would be the honest but unlikely response), deny (let me know and I will call them out as liars), say they don’t know (they can check with their secretaries), say they are not at liberty to divulge such details, or not respond at all (most likely).

The ordinance took place as I stated.

Thank you for coming to defend your story. Let me preface this by saying that I truly want to believe that this is happening. I hope you can understand the skepticism.

I can imagine some of the social repercussions if you were to use your real name. Mormons don’t always treat apostates kindly, especially those who divulge secrets. Without your name, however, it would be inappropriate to give a lot of trust to your claims.

I don’t know how much good asking the GAs would do. No answer from them aside from confirmation that they performed the ceremonies described would get us very far.

Perhaps you could get a blogger in a position of trust to verify your real identity and your story, kind of like those anonymous sources in the government that some journalists use. It’s not as good as full disclosure, but it’s something.

If I can help investigate your claims, let me know. Thank you for bringing your story to light even though, as it stands, it must only be accepted tentatively.

2) One very noticeable mistake you made in your story was stating that your wife’s feet were washed. Only men have their feet washed, and are pronounced clean. Women have previously been washed and pronounced clean long prior to receiving the higher blessings.

Also, I’m unaware of anywhere that women are pronounced clean. As far as I know, their initiatory ordinance also promises that they “may become clean from the blood and sins of this generation”. Both have to wait for that future blessing.

Also, I’m unaware of anywhere that women are pronounced clean. As far as I know, their initiatory ordinance also promises that they “may become clean from the blood and sins of this generation”.

It’s different for men and women. Women are pronounced clean from the blood and sins of this generation.

Sister _______, having authority, I wash you preparatory to your receiving your anointings [for and in behalf of _______, who is dead], and whereas you have obeyed the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with a true and honest heart, and have been faithful in keeping your covenants, your sins are forgiven and you are clean every whit. I wash your head…

I stand corrected.

I agree with anonymous, to an extent. I find the fact that it is an ‘outer’ ordinance of a ‘inner’ confirmation which must still be confirmed by an ‘inner’ confirmation of its own, to be quite ironic, in an amusing way.

If God wants someone to have their calling & election made sure, then it is done, whether they’re received a S.A. or not.

The Church of the Firstborn is open to any and all, if they seek truth and receive it when it is offered. And I agree with Mel — it DOES get scary. Love gives the strength to endure, though, for those who choose to receive the love.

HiJolly

Mormonism teaches that everyone must receive the ordinance of baptism in order to inherit the Celestial Kingdom. If they die before they could be baptized a Mormon, then Mormons perform the ordinance on their behalf.

So, if Second Anointing is requisite for Exaltation, then the Mormon pattern would tell us that it must be performed for someone sooner or later.

And for those who begged to feel God’s love and received only ambiguity?

How about ‘members-only’ for certain higher callings within the Church…

It’s still hard to avoid that mindset at work, for another example, but I’m glad that I don’t have the church to make things worse. Now if only I could stop feeling superior for having escaped.

He didn’t even bother telling us what great piece of scientific evidence “shook” his testimony. What was so new that you hadn’t heard before. Please share.

I suspect it is a lie. Congrats, you made a bunch of people feel justified.

If he broke his anonymity—

You’re making a lot of assumptions about Anointed One that you have no justification for. (Unless you know him personally?)

you know that the buffetings in the flesh are upon you Satan is having a feast with you giving you a miserable life

This is what I’m referring to. You know this because…

These is just a part of his testimony.

I’m still curious how you know the Bible or other scriptures are reliable sources of truth.

Well if you understand the doctrine of revelation you will know all things.

I understand the Mormon concept of revelation. How do you know that revelation is a reliable source of truth?

See here is the big challenge for the big bang and evolution with this true law

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

So Big Bang and evolution never happened, but hey still a fun story.

How i do know? well i know because it has been revealed to me thats why is a reliable source of truth.

“We spend time dispelling the myth that evolution and religion are incompatible,” Johnson said. “We try to unburden students from the idea of either-or. That’s baggage they don’t have to carry.”

A faithful Mormon can accept evolution with a clear conscience.

We need to be careful not to think that we understand everything, both from a science and religious perspective,” Johnson said. “It’s OK not to have all the answers.”

If you’re really asking why the universe exists, then I will freely admit that science doesn’t have all the answers, just like religion doesn’t. Science doesn’t say what started the Big Bang or what came before it. Mormonism doesn’t say how the very first god came into existence and where the matter came from for him to form his universe.

(BTW, matter can be changed into energy and vice versa as stated in Einstein’s famous equation E=mc², so the Big Bang isn’t a contradiction since it theorizes that all of the matter in the universe started as a pinpoint of energy.)

Regarding revelation, if I understand correctly, you say that you know that revelation is a reliable source of truth because it has been revealed to you, which is circular. How can you rely on the revelation that revelation is reliable?

It’s true that science makes mistakes in its search for truth. When scientists find evidence that a previous theory was incomplete or untrue, then they change the theory to match the evidence. Isn’t that wonderful?! So honest and humble!

One problem that I have with religion is that once it teaches something that is mistaken, it may never change its mind even when faced with evidence of its mistake. Creationism is a good example. Because some people believe that their god revealed the Bible story of the creation, they refuse to admit that the biblical creation story is a religious myth, not a literal account of how the world was created. They can’t admit their mistakes.

Which is another reason I don’t trust revelation as a reliable source of truth. There are so many people claiming to receive revelation, yet their revelations contradict each other. For example, Muhammad claimed to be a prophet who received a book from an angel sent by God, which is very similar to the claims that Joseph Smith made later.

How do I know which is the truth? My answer is that I look for evidence that will either support or contradict the revelation. So I never trust a revelation by itself. It needs supporting evidence before I’ll trust revelation at all.

So I’m still not clear how you know that revelation is a reliable source of truth.

The protesters burned U.S. flags and chanted “Death to Christians.”

At least 11 people were reported injured across the country during the demonstrations.

Police said four demonstrators and five police officers were injured in clashes in the northern province of Badakhshan after protesters attacked a NATO base.

You’re assuming that what you believe is true (e.g. “all the true prophets ordained by [God] testified in the Son of God and his expiation”) without telling me why you know this is true. You’ve given me no reason to accept what you believe.

BTW, some of the fruits of Christianity/Mormonism:

· murderous Crusades in the Middle East

· wholesale slaughter of millions of Native Americans when Columbus led Europeans to the New World

· murder of men, women, and children at Mountain Meadows

· murder of former Mormons in early Utah

· bigotry against African Americans, women, and homosexuals

So every religion has its own dark past, including Mormonism.

P.S. I want to make it clear that I’ve been where you’re at, so I understand where you’re coming from and I sympathize. If anything, I just want to convince you that things aren’t black and white.