Latter-day Saint Tom Phillips was an Area Executive Secretary for the Mormon Church in the United Kingdom when an LDS General Authority invited him to receive his Second Anointing in the Preston England Temple. On Sunday, 19 May 2002, Mr. Phillips and his wife received their “second endowment,” in the company of four additional worthy couples, under the leadership of Mormon Apostle M. Russell Ballard. Eighteen months later Mr. Phillips’ faith in Mormonism was beginning to crumble.
Tom Phillips presents a detailed chronicle of his experience and the little-discussed Second Anointing temple ordinance on his webpage at Mormon Think. According to his account, in the days leading up to his special endowment,
“I reflected on my own life and personal worthiness. I read all that Elder McConkie had written on the subject [as he had been told to do] and looked forward to the day with excitement. Basically, Elder McConkie wrote that, during the first endowment you are given certain blessings to become a king and a priest (queen and priestess) to the most high God, and these blessings are conditional on you remaining worthy of them. With the second endowment, the conditions are removed as you have already proven your faithfulness and entitlement to the blessings. Therefore, you are sealed up to the highest degree of the celestial kingdom unconditionally. Any sins committed afterward may render you liable to the buffetings in the flesh, but they will not prevent you from attaining your exaltation. The only sin that is unpardonable is denying the Holy Ghost (or in some passages the shedding of innocent blood).
“I had never expected this to happen to me. I assumed I would be judged in the next life, not have that judgment made in this life. It meant I and my wife would be guaranteed a celestial glory unless we committed the ‘unpardonable sin’ which seemed to be unthinkable at the time. We had made it, the Lord, through his prophet, had informed us we were worthy of this high exaltation.”
Yet Mr. Phillips immediately encountered a conflict between being worthy of exaltation and obeying the counsel of his Church leaders. In order to protect the “secret” of the “second endowment” ordinance, the Phillipses were instructed not to tell anyone about the ordinance, to be vague or even misleading if questions arose. Tom Phillips explained,
“I did not like lying to my family and friends as to our whereabouts that weekend. I did not feel comfortable as it was dishonest but I was instructed not to disclose what was happening. To tell people you will be at the temple on a Sunday, when supposedly all temples are closed, would raise further questions. I therefore told my children we were going to the temple for the weekend and would be attending a special meeting with Elder Ballard and the Area President on Sunday. This was not too unusual for my children to accept as I regularly attended Area Presidency meetings and had been assisting these same brethren the day before at a training session for stake presidents. Also, it was as truthful as I considered I could be while still keeping the second anointing secret…
“While walking in the temple grounds in the early evening [of 18 May] we unexpectedly met a member of our ward who had attended a family wedding that day. She asked us what we were doing at the temple on a Saturday evening. I quickly mentioned something about Area Presidency meetings (she knew of my calling at the time, that I worked closely with the Area Presidency) and changed the subject. Again, I did not feel comfortable lying for the Lord.”
Though he doesn’t suggest as much, perhaps Mr. Phillips’ discomfort over deliberately disobeying one of the requirements for exaltation (i.e., “Be honest in our dealings with others and with the Lord” Gospel Principles, 291, 1986 edition) produced a seed of doubt that lay dormant until he began to “consider in more depth other truth claims of the church.”
During his Second Anointing Mr. Phillips was “ordained a king and a priest unto the Most High God, to rule and reign in the House of Israel forever.” He was given “the fullness of the priesthood” and a blessing that promised, without any condition of continued obedience, that he would “attain unto the Godhood,” have the “Power to be a member of a Godhead,” and was henceforth “Sealed up to eternal life” (among other things).
This all raises many questions in relation to Mormon doctrine and culture. Here is one to get the discussion started.
Our Mormon friends often criticize the Christian belief that our works do not contribute to our salvation. Some Mormons believe that Christians call upon this doctrine to justify sinful lifestyle choices, suggesting that there is no basis upon which to call a sinning Christian to repentance if his or her works have no effect on the person’s salvation. While I do not agree with this premise, I wonder: Do Mormons believe the same about those who have had their calling and election made sure via a Second Anointing?
Listen to Tom Phillips discuss his Second Anointing experience in this 2-part interview from the Mormon Stories Podcast with John Dehlin.
Perhaps, but in the case of Albert Carrington it wasn’t. What they did was ordain him back into the priesthood and RESTORE HIS BLESSINGS. His wives were never given to another. This was the same thing that happened to Amasa Lyman.
After Lyman’s death and at Caroline’s [his wife’s] funeral in 1908, Francis M. Lyman (President of the Quorum of the Twelve) told
A short time later Francis M. told his son Richard (who later became another Apostle),
Also, D&C 132 was given (July 1843) BEFORE the Fullness of the Priesthood was restored. (September 1843). And if what you say is true, than it contradicts itself because it says that only TWO sins (ADLUTERY NOT INCLUDED) can result in having the blessing revoked. So this would mean that not even the “prophet” would have the power to do so. (Remember Smith’s teaching to be CRAFTY and seal all you can so that they cannot be denied entrance into the CK?) Buerger,
Buerger addresses this very problem you speak of in his article on the Fullness of the Priesthood,
If all this is CONDITIONAL as Buerger explains then WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE SECOND ANONTING? THERE ISN’T ONE. But such is the crazy world of Mormonism. So, Instead of believing you and your opinions, I will believe what I read and other CREDIBLE HISTORIANS that know far more about this than you do.
As for Joseph Smith and his lineage, there is ample evidence that he DID say it, and it was affirmed by others. If you care to ignore the quotes, go right ahead, I’m not surprised in the least.
Brigham Young taught that Elohim was the “grandfather god”. Adam was Yahovah Michael. Jesus was not Jehovah/Yahovah in early Mormon teachings. (“We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father” – Official declaration of Latter-day Saint belief regarding God the Father – Times and Seasons 3 (15 Nov. 1841): 578.)
There have never been any real “head gods” in Mormonism, since the lineage of the gods goes back to eternity. But for this earth, according to Young, Elohim assisted his grandson Yahovah Michael in creating this world. This is all made clear in Young’s lecture at the veil that was incorporated for a short time in the Temple Ceremony, then phased out after his death, when Adam-god (“a pearl too precious to be cast before swine” according to Joseph F. Smith) was buried and they began to denounce a fictional Adam-god THEORY that Charles Penrose made up.
According to Young’s teachings, Elohim was the “Grandfather in Heaven” to the descendants of Adam—to both their bodies AND SPIRITS—with Adam having the position of “God the [immediate] Father” to both body and spirit of Jesus and all who have, and who will live upon this earth. Speaking to the School of the Prophets, Young explained that “Elohim, Yahova & Michael, were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth & Michael became Adam.” (Brigham Young, as reported in the Joseph F. Smith Journal, entry for June 17, 1871 (LDS Archives).) http://user.xmission.com/~research/central/temple7.htm See also Buerger, The Adam God Doctrine, https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V15N01_16.pdf
At a meeting of the School of the Prophets in 1868, Abraham B. Smoot made this statement:
Jan Weibye wrote this in his journal, which corroborates the above statement by Smoot:
It is always amazing to me that some Mormons would rather make stuff up out of thin air (Adam the Holy “GHOST”????!!!!) rather than believe the truth. Unbelievable. So, how did Adam (the Holy “Ghost”) get sent to himself?
Thank you MC writers, very interesting article.I had heard about the calling and election made sure, but I had no idea that there was an actual ritual for that. Its kind of odd, because never think of matters of a spiritual nature needing an official to come between me and god. I believe in ritual, but its more of a mental thing.
Grindael
Honestly, I don’t think I am going to continue this discussion with you. You have no desire to learn the truth, so there is no point. I couldn’t care less what some historian claims about the doctrine. I have stated the truth, and you can reject it at your own risk.
You do not know our doctrine, and your credible sources are just as ignorant as you. Until you are willing to admit such I am not going to discuss something so sacred with you.
Kate
I don’t teach my opinion without stating that it is such. What I have taught is the doctrine of the church; the official doctrine. When I have had disagreements with other members on this blog I have mentioned them. I have seen very few, and they have been settled well between us. We teach only the truth.
I feel the need to correct some false information put forth here by Grindael. I do so only as far as I am able.
D&C 110: 1-4
“The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our cunderstanding were opened.
We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.
His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, EVEN THE VOICE OF JEHOVAH, saying:
I am the first and the last; I AM HE WHO LIVETH, I AM HE WHO WAS SLAIN; I AM YOUR ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER.”
In 1 John 2: 1, which Joseph Smith accepted as translated correctly, we read “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous”
Jesus Christ is our advocate, and Joseph Smith refers to him as Jehovah in 1836. It is clear that Joseph Smith taught that Jesus was Jehovah.
Also, we read in John 8: 58 Christ’s declaration that “Before Abraham was, I am.” Referring this back to the Old Testament, we read in Joseph Smith’s correction of it Exodus 6: 3 “…and unto Jacob. I am the Lord God Almighty; the Lord Jehovah. And was not my name known unto them?” This is the same being that previously identified himself as “I am” (Exodus 3: 14). Thus the Bible itself identifies Jesus as Jehovah, as translated by Joseph Smith.
Anyone claiming that Joseph Smith did not teach that Jesus was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, and the Son of the Father, is either deluded or a bold faced liar.
I would also like to point out that I never once said that Brigham Young taught that Adam was the Holy Ghost. What I said is that in all my reading that is the closest comparison that can be made.
I do not think that Brigham Young thought Adam was the Holy Ghost, nor do I think he believed that Adam was the physical or spiritual father of Jesus Christ.
The only thing I will say in regards to what Brigham Young taught is that I have read a fair amount of it and find that I honestly do not understand what he meant by half of it, and so I will leave the subject alone until such time as an understanding comes to me. I will not, however, look for that understanding from those who are openly hostile towards the church, or from those who place earthly learning above the learning of the spirit. I will seek understanding only from God and his appointed ministers.
Typical Mormon response of those backed into a corner by the evidence. And for one who knows so much about Mormon Doctrine, your lack of any quotes to back up your failed objections is noted. Au revoir.
Of course, you have to look at Jesus being equated with Jehovah in early Mormon teachings in the sense that Joseph Smith taught that Jesus and the Father were the same being. The doctrine of the Father and Son being two SEPARATE PHYSICAL PERSONAGES was not incorporated into Mormon Doctrine until about 1838-9. Jehovah as a name title for Christ, was used prior to that time, but only because it was taught that the Son was the Father incarnate in the flesh. (See Lectures on Faith 1835 D&C.) You can also read about this in my post here.
Just because you don’t think so doesn’t mean he didn’t teach it and believe it. All the evidence says that he did. Your lack of evidence again, shows that you don’t know what you are talking about.
In his translation of the Bible, sometimes called The Inspired Version (completed in 1833), Joseph Smith changed some verses in the New Testament to reflect his early Monotheistic teachings:
KJV: All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.(Luke 10:22)
JST: All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it. (Luke 10:22 Joseph Smith Translation, emphasis mine)
LOL. Ask God and get back to us, we’ll be waiting.
That is both Typical of Shem and Mormons in general.
We can provide massive amounts of quotes and then we hear 1 of two things.
1. We are ignorant and dont understand the quotes but the LDS do.
2. The LDS claim they dont understand them, and thats ok, they are not ignorant, they just dont have enough information.
Funny thing about these responses, LDS years ago that heard them sure did understand them, they might not have agreed with them, and if they did not agree they said so.
But I guess Ignorance is Bliss.
Grindael
I know you have no respect for others beliefs. However, I have provided quotes and references for everything I have said on this topic. Thus you have flat out lied concerning me.
Tell me, why should I continue a conversation with you when you display such disrespectful and dishonest tactics?
I answered everything you claimed, and then you repeated every claim, with the additional claim that I didn’t answer it. This is typical of the non-LDS on this site, as it appear they can’t stand the idea of an answer actually existing, and so they ignore it when it is presented.
Oh, and I have read the lectures on faith, and only an idiot would think that Joseph Smith ever taught that the Father and the Son were the same being. It is so clearly stated that they are separate personages in these lectures that you have only further proved that you have no clue about his teaches and beliefs.
Fourthe Lecture “There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things–by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space–They are the Father and the Son”
You gave your opinion. That is not a credible answer.
Not about the 2nd Anointing you didn’t. (Which is what I was referring to)
Actually, I’m an ex-Mormon, that served a Mission and was a member for many, many years. I’ve forgotten more about the church than you know.
They are Mormon Historians that (again) know more than you ever will, that you reject them out of hand shows your ignorance and incredible bias that you would call them ignorant just because you can’t accept the facts.
Idiot? LOL. Continue reading,
“There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power overall things…They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;–he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh.” (Lectures on Faith, 5:2, emphasis mine)
In the questions and answers, at the end of each lecture, we find clarification:
Q. What is the Father?
A. He is a personage of glory and of power. (5:2.)…
Q. What is the Son?
A. First, he is a personage of tabernacle. (5:2.)…
Q. Why was he called the Son?
A. Because of the flesh.
Q. Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind?
A.They do.
Q. What is this mind?
A. The Holy Spirit.
This is a form of Modalism. Look it up. It’s heresy. Oh heck, since I know you probably won’t….
Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation, Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity.
Modalism was condemned by Tertullian (c. 213, Tertullian Against Praxeas 1, in Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. 3). Also known as Sabellianism, it was condemned as heresy by Dionysius, bishop of Rome (c. 262).
Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God (i.e., who God is). “Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus… modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
For further reading (if one isn’t too ignorant to click on the link) http://bib.irr.org/joseph-smiths-modalism-sabellian-sequentialism-or-swedenborgian-expansionism
Grindael
You said “I’ve forgotten more about the church than you know.”
Indeed, you have forgotten it, as you clearly don’t know it, if you ever did.
Now, I don’t care what you used to be. You are not a member now, and thus are part of that group of people that are non-LDS. Whether you were one in the past is meaningless.
As to historians, I couldn’t care less what their credentials are. You say they are Mormon Historians. Does that mean they are members, or just Historians that focus on the church? Not that it matters, because they are wrong.
Now, I did give a reference concerning the second anointing. What it said was not to talk about it, and I declared my choice to follow that counsel. I will not discuss that with anyone. It is sacred, and is thus not for the dogs; a pearl not to be cast before swine.
However, in everything I did talk about I gave references, and thus your claim that I lack quotes is a flat out lie, which is so common among those who display an open hatred for the church as you have done.
I comment on the doctrine of the calling and election, and I provided quotes and references for everything I said. I even provided a quote to explain why I was not going to discuss the 2nd anointing. Stop lying about me.
Now, on a final note, I did not give my opinion. I gave the doctrine of the church, as taught by Joseph Smith and testified to by all the leaders since him. You can try to dismiss the doctrine all you want, and I have to say you people get very creative in doing so, but it will not change the doctrine, or make you right. It will only prove your own ignorance in the end.
Speaking of the Lectures of Faith, you should read more closely, and think a little more rather than just accepting what some historian claims.
The Father and the Son have the same mind, for they are one. But he also teaches that we can become “joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.”
Thus, we will have the same mind as the Father and the Son, being in their likeness, and being one in the same way as they are one. He never meant that the Father and the Son are the same being, but that they are joined in thought and desire, and that they act as one; and we can attain to this same perfection and oneness that they enjoy.
I realize all you can see is what you want to see, and thus imprint previously formed ideas unto the words of Joseph Smith, but that does not make you right. He always taught that the Father and Son were separate individuals who together rule existence. They are two personages.
Shem,
“Now, I don’t care what you used to be. You are not a member now, and thus are part of that group of people that are non-LDS. Whether you were one in the past is meaningless.”
I beg to differ. I don’t know how long grindael was LDS, but 40 years of my life was wasted on Mormonism. That is gut wrenching for me. 40 years is a long time. Just because we are no longer members does not negate everything we learned, experienced and was taught. Once again your arrogance is astounding. We have just as much right to discuss our experiences in Mormonism as current LDS members do. If my past membership is so meaningless then please explain why the LDS church keeps sending their missionaries to my door? As a member I NEVER had missionaries knocking at my door and my husband and children are still members so they must be sending them to me because my past membership matters. No LDS person that I personally know would EVER tell someone who has left that their past membership doesn’t matter and I highly doubt your prophet and leaders would tell someone that either. I think grindael has gotten under your skin, and from what I can see he does know what he’s talking about and provides loads of information from LDS leaders, LDS scriptures, writings, etc. While you continue to post your “unofficial” opinion.
Kate said
According to Shem he is speaking the truth, but I guess we must assume it is the truth since he feels the need to not provide evidence.
Kate
Please, read my comments and keep them in context.
I made a comment concerning the attitudes and practices of non-LDS on this site. Grindael’s comment that “Actually, I’m an ex-Mormon…” etc was obviously saying that he does not belong in that designation. It was an attempt to make “former members” a different designation than “non-Member.”
My point was that in my comment I was talking about those who are not currently members, and thus for the context of that designation his former membership is meaningless, which is a perfectly honest and logical statement, as being a former member still means he is current non-LDS.
So don’t get up on your high horse and claim something that is not true.
Rick
I did give evidence, it is just that you ignored it like you always do.
In my first post I gave this reference:
“But suppose such persons become disaffected and the spirit of repentance leaves them—which is a seldom and an almost unheard of eventuality—still, what then? The answer is—and the revelations and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith so recite!—they must then pay the penalty of their own sins, for the blood of Christ will not cleanse them. Or if they commit murder or adultery, they lose their promised inheritance because these sins are exempt from the sealing promises. Or if they commit the unpardonable sin, they become sons of perdition.” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:43.) Taken from the Doctrine and Covenants student manual (http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-132-marriage-an-eternal-covenant?lang=eng&query=%22calling+and+election%22+made+sure)
In my second post I quoted the Bible, in response to a request for such:
2 Peter 1: 10-11 “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
And 2 Thessalonians 2: 13-14 “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
In my third post I reference, though I don’t directly quote, D&C 68:4 and D&C 20.
In my fourth post I quote the Doctrine and Covenants:
D&C 132: 26 clearly shows that the Sealing of the Holy Spirit of Promise comes only after one is married and sealed for eternity. It is only in this covenant that the possibility of having ones Calling and Election made sure is given.
Then, in D&D 132: 43-44, we read “And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.
And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.”
In my next post I give the following references:
In the Doctrines of the Gospel teachers manual we read this warning: “Exercise caution while discussing the doctrine of having our calling and election made sure. Avoid speculation. Use only the sources given here and in the student manual. Do not attempt in any way to discuss or answer questions about the second anointing.”
D&C 20: 42, “And to teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church.”
D&C 68: 1-4.
“My servant, Orson Hyde, was called by his ordination to proclaim the everlasting gospel, by the Spirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land, in the congregations of the wicked, in their synagogues, reasoning with and expounding all scriptures unto them.
And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—
And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.”
I also reference the stories of Abraham and Job.
Now, in my next quote I give no references, but then I am not really trying to prove anything. It is in the next quote that I once again give evidence:
D&C 110: 1-4
“The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.
We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.
His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, EVEN THE VOICE OF JEHOVAH, saying:
I am the first and the last; I AM HE WHO LIVETH, I AM HE WHO WAS SLAIN; I AM YOUR ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER.”
In 1 John 2: 1, which Joseph Smith accepted as translated correctly, we read “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous”
Jesus Christ is our advocate, and Joseph Smith refers to him as Jehovah in 1836. It is clear that Joseph Smith taught that Jesus was Jehovah.
Also, we read in John 8: 58 Christ’s declaration that “Before Abraham was, I am.” Referring this back to the Old Testament, we read in Joseph Smith’s correction of it Exodus 6: 3 “…and unto Jacob. I am the Lord God Almighty; the Lord Jehovah. And was not my name known unto them?” This is the same being that previously identified himself as “I am” (Exodus 3: 14). Thus the Bible itself identifies Jesus as Jehovah, as translated by Joseph Smith.
Then, two posts later I quoted the Lectures on Faith, though it seems I give it as lecture four when it is really lecture five.
Fifth Lecture “There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things–by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space–They are the Father and the Son”
I quoted that same lecture again in my next post:
The Father and the Son have the same mind, for they are one. But he also teaches that we can become “joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.”
Now, I realize you don’t accept anything I say, but to say I have not provided evidence and references is a flat out lie. Of course this is typical of you. If you don’t like the evidence you simply ignore it and then claim it wasn’t given in the first place.
Shem,
I think that past membership is very meaningful in helping expose the truth about Mormonism and it’s false prophets. I can see why it is so upsetting to current members, especially the information that has been given out by former temple going members. Current members do their best to discredit those who have left and by telling any of us that our past membership is meaningless in any context just shows this. I don’t feel I took your comment out of context at all, I think you are somehow trying to discredit or dismiss all that grindael posts by making such comments. He’s not a member now, so nothing he says is true right?
Kate
Believe what you want, but I think your own arrogance is showing through.
Simple question: Is Grindael currently a member of the LDS church?
If he is then my saying he isn’t is wrong. If he is not than my saying he is not is perfectly correct. Whether he was at one time a member does not effect this in any way, and thus is meaningless.
“He’s not a member now, so nothing he says is true right?”
I never said this. I have stated many times in the past that non-members are correct on many points. I have seen Grindael himself give good information, and at times present doctrine accurately. He is not always right, however.
This is the real problem, and it seems that everyone here agrees with it. I do not, nor have I ever claimed that “Since he is not a member now nothing is says is true.” However, the general attitude here seems to be “Since he was once a member everything he says is true” which is also a false premise.
Former membership in the church does not guarantee an accurate understanding of the doctrine, nor should such a former membership be held up as the final credential, as it is frequently done here. In some ways I don’t think your former memberships means a whole lot, and for this reason. I am not going to simply accept what you say because you were a member at one time.
I never meant that it was meaningless in any context, only in the context in which I was speaking.
Now, just to be clear, I am not trying to discredit anyone personally. I am only here to discuss and show the error in what some people think. Being wrong does not discredit the individual, only the concept they are promoting.
“He’s not a member now, so nothing he says is true right?”
I never said this.
You said “I’ve forgotten more about the church than you know.”
Indeed, you have forgotten it, as you clearly don’t know it, if you ever did.
These are your own words. I don’t need to comment further.
That is what they said about Adam-god to get out of talking about it. It’s just a lame excuse to keep yourself brainwashed. And you can’t even keep your own word not to discuss it.
LOL. Your own ignorance is shown in every post where you fail to provide any evidence at all except your own disingenuous rote responses.
Wrong. That is not what the Lectures say. They specifically say that the Holy “Ghost” IS the MIND of GOD, not a shared “oneness”. Nice try, but another rote answer.
Also, it specifically says that the Father is a personage of SPIRIT and that Jesus is a person of TABERNACLE, and is so BECAUSE OF THE FLESH. (That the FATHER came down as the SON and BECAME FLESH.) And you failed to address why Smith changed the Bible to read that the Father IS the Son and the Son IS the Father.
Your denying that doesn’t make it so. Your refusal to acknowledge the truth shows how badly you don’t want to acknowledge the truth.
Kate
I know what my words are, but again you are trying to universalize them rather than keep them in context.
On this doctrine Grindael is wrong, and if he ever really understood it than he has forgotten the truth. On many points this seems to be the case. It does not mean everything he says is wrong. That is a twisting of my words that you prefer, but was never the intention I had in them.
Grindael
I think I am done with you. Rick tried to claim I gave no evidence, and so I reposted every quote and reference I gave. You also have previously made this claim, and have been proven wrong. If all you can do is lie about what I have said and provided there is little point in repeating it all again.
Shem,
Your evidence is not evidence. It is your speculation, some “advice” given over a hundred years later, not to discuss anything outside what is written in a church manual (that gives little historical quotes, evidence or anything else) and a few verses from the Bible and D&C. You quote no original sources, and therefore have not refuted anything I posted. This is what is meant by evidence. That concept it appears, is outside your realm of reality.
Note
I quote the Doctrine and Covenants, which is an original source. I quote the Lectures on Faith, with is an original source.
Thus when Grindael says “You quote no original sources” he is flat out lying about what I have said and what I have provided.
So, let me ask, why should anyone listen to him?
Note
I was directly speaking of the Second Anointing. Please read and comprehend my responses. I was not speaking of the Jesus/Jehovah part of the debate… Here is what YOU said:
ME:
That is what they said about Adam-god to get out of talking about it. It’s just a lame excuse to keep yourself brainwashed. And you can’t even keep your own word not to discuss it.
ME:
LOL. Your own ignorance is shown in every post where you fail to provide any evidence at all except your own disingenuous rote responses.
And THEN I answered your comment about the Lectures on Faith. You did not refute anything about the 2nd Anointing, so why should anyone listen to you.?
Grindael
“why should anyone listen to you?”
Because I never claimed to refute anything about the Second Annointing.
The real problem here is that you never specify what you are talking about until after I have answered you. You said I failed to provide any evidence at all, and that is a lie, as I have provided plenty. If you intended that to apply only to evidence concerning this one very specific topic, and not all the matter that I discussed in my posts, you should be more specific.
Then you say “Your evidence is not evidence. It is your speculation, some “advice” given over a hundred years later, not to discuss anything outside what is written in a church manual (that gives little historical quotes, evidence or anything else) and a few verses from the Bible and D&C.” It becomes clear that you are indeed including everything I was talking about, and not just the one specific topic, which I already said I wasn’t going to discuss. If all you were talking about was that one specific topic then why bother mentioning the scriptural quotes at all, as they had nothing to do with the topic?
If you want your comments to be taken in a narrow context, then don’t speak in broad terms.
To say it again, I will not discuss this topic with anyone. It is sacred, and thus not to be openly discussed with the world. I don’t care what your opinion is of this. God has commanded, and who am I to give the sacred to the dogs of the world.
To say it again, that is what they said about Adam-god. If you would read with comprehension … ah, what’s the point? You never will.
This is the most bizzarre site i have ever run across. Reading through some of the articles I have been impressed with the discussion, but also have been dissapointed with the one sided notions and “histories”. For example, I found an old article about temples and felt compelled to read through a lot of misinformation and outright wrong statements. To say that early christians did not participate in initiatory temple ceremonies or there is no evidence of temple worship is flat out wrong.
To take one version about the second annointing and then somehow twist that into what it was twisted into above is completely wrong. Find me a doctrinal source on the second annointing being a conditionally free ordinance. I know of someone that has received this. It is sacred, and it is not discussed widely. However, knowing first hand from someone that is still faithful, and having sat in the temple with that person and received first hand explanation of its intent, I can say that is greatly mischaracterized here. A person who has discussed such an ordinance and then publicly described it and discussed it has not kept the temple covenent. That in of itself is a condition.
Heber C Kimball has spoken on this issue in the journal discourses 3:124. The calling and election is dependent on keeping covenants, as are all blessings. For one man to come and say different, and then go publicly about that, leads me to doubt his viewpoint. I am not calling him a liar, I believe he believes what he said, but it is simply false. People see things in different ways, and he saw the annointing in a way that appears contrary to the stance. Since there is no official public doctrine, one could read Rough Stone Rolling on the subject, which has a great discussion, but even then, no one here is going to know the truth of that teaching from first hand experience I assume, so we are left to the interpretation from one man who has broken his covenant in this article.