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.
Yea, I’m thinking this is the Mormon version of “eternal security”.
The whole thing reminds me of some strange ritual out of a fraternal organization like the Free Masons.
There’s only one way for a person to be “eternally secure” and that is through the blood of Jesus and a personal faith that He is (1) God incarnate (2) the perfect sacrifice for sin. Through faith, we personalize Christ’s sacrifice (on our behalf). God extends His grace to us, drawing us in that we might believe/accept His Son Jesus Christ and in so doing secure eternal life.
He has extended this to us as a gift. There is nothing of us in any of it.
This Mormon ritual is just more merit badge earning. What does the Bible tell us about such things? They appear to have wisdom but they don’t. They are earthly, demonic and directly reject God’s plan of salvation for a man-made system of works.
Apart of being born again is repentance; a turning away from our sin life. Paul explains very clearly that it’s somewhat natural for us to want to serve God in the spirit but to violate our desires to do this because of our sin nature.
That is why we are told to walk by the Spirit and we won’t carry out the deeds of the flesh. It’s a process called sanctification. The Good News is that we are continually cleansed of our unrighteousness by the Blood of Jesus Christ.
That men think that they can add anything to what Jesus has already done for us and what we have accepted by faith is pure folly.
These Mormon rituals provide some sort of false security for the Mormon high achievers. They are meaningless and have no power except to bolster the pride of these people who feel they have hit the jackpot in the Mormon lotto game.
A Mormon on Mormon Discussions is arguing with me that Calling & Election is when
He also says that this can only be done by a personal visit from God. On the other hand, Jo Smith taught,
He then says:
This is why Smith also added,
Brian M. Hauglid writes a pretty good article on calling and election and states (near the end):
This means that “apostles” like Albert Carrington, who had the “fullness of the priesthood” and his 2nd anointing, yet fooled all his brethren, and committed adultery for years, after being excommunicated, was then re-instated into the church and had his blessings restored after his death, and went on to the celestial kingdom to get his exaltation. The same was true of Amasa Lyman and many others.
According to Brigham Young, Phillips would be a Son of Perdition. Here are some of Young’s reasons why:
“Brother Kimball asked whether there were liars and thieves in heaven. It is recorded that the Devil is somewhere there, accusing the brethren and finding fault with them. Men in the flesh are clothed with the Priesthood with its blessings, the apostatizing from which and turning away from the Lord prepares them to become sons of perdition. There was a Devil in heaven, and he strove to possess the birthright, that of the Saviour. He was a liar front the beginning, and loves those who live and make lies, as do his imps and followers here on earth. How many devils there are in heaven, or where it is, is not for me to say” (JD 8:279-280).
This made Young leery of giving endowments to the young, saying he only wanted to give them
“to old people, as they would not be likely to apostatize, but then if we were to carry out that rule, we would not ordain any one, only those who would not apostatize. And to carry the thing still further, we expect all who are faithful to take the place of Adams in the worlds to be created; then if there were no apostates, what would we do for devils? As we have to get our devils from this earth, for the worlds that are to be created”? (Historian’s Office Journal: Vol. 23:27, Aug. 1859; JD 4:363-364, 372; 8:179, 204, 279)
Brigham Young taught that sons of perdition eventually lose their bodies, become sprits again and are used in this way (becoming devils). According to Young, the sons of perdition eventually disincorporate completely and dissolve back into their native element (intelligences) to be recycled or reorganized at some future time. As Wilford Woodruff recorded:
“I attended prayer meeting in the evening circle. President Young asked Elder Orson Pratt what he thought of his preaching that intelligent beings would continue to learn to all eternity. O. Pratt said that he believed the Gods had a knowledge at the present time of everything that ever did exist to the endless ages of all eternity. He believed it as much as any truth that he had ever learned in or out of this Church. President Young remarked that he had never learned that principle in the Church for it was not taught in the Church, for it was not true. It was false doctrine, for the Gods and all intelligent beings would never cease to learn except it was the Sons of Perdition. They would continue to decrease until they became dissolved back into their native element and lost their identity.” (WWJ Feb 17, 1856) Young also stated that: “The rebellious will be thrown back into their native element, there to remain myriads of years before their dust will again be revived, before they will be re-organized” (JD 1:118).
But years later, Joseph F. Smith would preach that Young was wrong and that the Sons of Perdition would never get out of “outer darkness” and that what Young taught was false doctrine. Such is the confusion of Mormon Prophets.
I knew that Brigham Young was a false prophet!
“……… that what Young taught was false doctrine.”
OK, OK I know there’s a Mormon escape clause in here some where.
Let’s just declare them all false prophets. Scrap the whole deal and trust in Jesus for our salvation. There are people who do like religion though. It would seem to me that they could come up with something better than Mormonism. Mormonism take a lot of time, effort and money and that might not be all a person can do. Is there some sort of success path a Mormon guy and gal can get on that leads them to this super secret ceremony declaring them having made it in Mormonism?
“But years later, Joseph F. Smith would preach that Young was wrong and that the Sons of Perdition would never get out of “outer darkness” and that what Young taught was false doctrine. Such is the confusion of Mormon Prophets.”
Absolutely true! Thomas Monson could stand up and say that Joseph F. Smith taught false doctrine and Brigham Young actually had it right. How can people who know about all the confusion, in good conscience, still remain a Mormon? This I just don’t understand.
As to the second anointing, where is any of this in the Bible? Was this one of the many things lost to the great apostasy? I have heard about it, but not at church. While out walking one morning with a few ladies from my ward, one of them was going on and on about “calling and election made sure.”
I’ve never heard anyone mention it other than that day.
I am so thankful that I now put my faith and trust in Jesus and through Him my sins are forgiven. Not through some ceremony that I worked my way to. It also seems a bit arrogant to me that any mortal man can judge someone worthy to be exalted and all their future sins forgiven by doing this second anointing! Do you think that the general authority who invited Tom Phillips to do this would have gone through with it if he would have known about Mr. Phillips’ doubts (lying for the Lord)?
grindael,
I was reading your comments on another thread about Albert Carrington. What I’m getting out of that is this man had his 2nd anointing and then committed adultery and THEN was disfellowshipped or excommunicated for those actions? If this is correct then indeed how can that be? He had his 2nd anointing. I will admit that I don’t know much about this doctrine of calling and election made sure because it was never discussed at church while I was there. It will be interesting research for me.
Kate and Grindal,
Just wait, you can show all these problems and tell everyone JS was wrong and False, Or BY was wrong or false. But Then Shem will ride in on his horse and declare your ignorant, they both are corret, and you guys just have no clue. Just wait, Shem keeps doing it on other topics, I’m just waiting to see it happen here.
He knows everything, Just ask him, he will tell you so.
Hi Kate,
In a nutshell, Albert Carrington received “the fullness of the priesthood” (see the link I provided for David John Buerger’s excellent article) wherein he is actually ordained a king and priest, and had this sealed by the holy spirit of promise. This sealing cannot be revoked, except in the case of murder (the shedding of innocent blood), or the sin against the Holy “Ghost”. (according to Jo). Now, Carrington is therefore ordained a god. There is nothing more for him to prove in this life. Then, he commits adultery. He does this for 12 years, fooling his “brethren”, who meet with him in 1883 (after hearing rumors) and ALL OF THEM come to the conclusion that he is innocent of all charges (except for being a bit indiscreet). They BELIEVED Carrington when he flat out lied to them. Two years later, one of those he had been fornicating with got married, spilled the beans to her new husband and he went to “apostle” John W. Taylor, who went to the Presidency and Carrington was investigated again and hauled into headquarters. He still denied he committed adultery, claiming that since he did not “spill his seed” inside of any women, he was guilt free. Having fooled 14 “prophets, seers & revelators” plus Brigham Young, who supposedly found him worthy to get his 2nd anointing under his hands, they, in rage and disgust, ex’d him. Carrington had a stroke a few years later, and they rebaptized him. Then, just before he died, ordained him an Elder. Then after he died they buried him in his Temple Clothing, which they would not do to anyone who had not had their blessings restored, so they did that, restoring Carrington to his Apostleship, giving him back his priesthood, wives, etc. Smith taught that if someone committed any sin except murder & the sin against the Holy “Ghost”, they would be turned over to the buffeting of Satan until the day of redemption, so Carrington might be having a hard time in the spirit world. But he will still get his exaltation, godhood, and endless lives, because he was sealed by a prophet with no discernment who had the “sealing power” which is unrevokable except for the two “bad” sins. Hope this helps. I find it all disgusting.
Rick,
I provide documentation. Those who usually spout ignorance, don’t. Since my objective is the same as Shem’s for posting here, I’m happy to let the reader’s decide. All they will see is him name calling, and my reams of evidence. Ignorance is bliss!
Someone take a wild guess as to how many Mormons actually get this ritual performed for them? I say guess because I’m sure they’re aren’t any public records of this. For a guy who isn’t all that adept at math, statistics fascinate me because they tell a story. I picked up some information at another site regarding Utah Mormon numbers. Do you former Mormons think this is about right? When you consider whether this information is close to being or is totally accurate, think about what kind of a religion this is. For someone to be full-bore into it to reach the pinnacle described in the above article, Mormonism is their whole deal. It’s obvious to me that the number of people who would actual convert to Mormonism and really get into it, is small.
“Best estimates are that between 4 – 4.5 million Mormons are “active,” and by that they mean “attending sacrament meeting at least once a month.” That is a very low threshold to use in designating “activity” among Mormons. Cumorah.com once indicated that the rate of Mormons who were truly “active”–including holding temple recommends, paying tithing, holding positions–was only some 2.5 million or so people.”
“One must always remember that Mormonism does not work for about 70% of all Mormons. For every three people baptized, two walk out the door. One of those two never even really comes in the door in the first place but remains marginalized even at the point of baptism, and after a short period of time generally considers him or herself not even Mormon.”
“The fact that missionaries are taught to focus on numbers and not conversion is a stinging rebuke for Mormon leadership. They have nothing to gain from 2/3 of their baptisms other than bragging rights. These 2/3 of all members bring in no gain in tithing and waste considerable resources at the ward and branch level. Of the 1/3 that are “active” (attending at least once per month), only a portion of them pay all the money and do all the work. We also have to keep in mind that a sizable chunk of these truly active people are also unbelieving New Order Mormons, those who attend and jump the required hurdles, but do so only to keep the peace in a family that will otherwise be destroyed if one leaves the fold.”
The other thing I’m wondering about is if there is a prescribed path someone can take to get to this level of achievement within the Mormon organization. I would think that for a Mormon who lives in the part of the country I live in, the chances of them gaining god status is pretty slim. It would like be like trying to achieve Eagle Scout status without the means to do it.
A person could be absolutely a total believer in the Mormon program, completely sold out to it, and not have a chance to become a god designate here on earth. So a person wanting to get on the train heading to this lofty designation wouldn’t have any idea how to do it. Maybe I’m wrong but I’ve never seen anything that outlines the program that will lead to receiving this rite.
I would a Mormon even catch the eye of the person who had the power to recommend them for godhood?
In a way it reminds me of being a “made man” in the Mafia.
Rick
You are ignorant, and nothing will change that fact. However, much of what is said here is true and needs little expanding or correction.
However, the little that is needed I am happy to provide.
“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)
This sheds great light on the matter of Albert Carrington. I have seen no proof that he ever received this second anointing, but even if he had he lost that blessing when he committed adultery. His re-baptism and re-ordination as an elder does not restore that blessing. He was not re-endowned or resealed to his wife. Thus he could not have this promise anymore, as only one who is sealed in the marriage covenant can attain such (see D&C 132). This is the simple fact of the doctrine.
As to the questions of the original article, we do not believe this gives free license for the simple fact that it is possible to loose this promise all together, as shown above. Once one starts to slide backwards they are in danger of falling to far to recover. Even if they don’t it becomes necessary for them to suffer the payment required for their actions.
Speaking of Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith, I know Grindael claims to give references, but he fails to give such in regards to Joseph F. Smith and his comments, merely making a claim that he said something to this effect. So, may we have an actual quote with reference to support it?
As to Brigham Young himself, I honestly don’t understand half of what he said. However, I am not going to just declare it false because I don’t understand it. I will set it aside until I do understand it.
As to the quote from JD 1: 118, I have read the entire context, and I can honestly say that there are at least two possible things that he could have meant. The most likely one to me seems that the spirits and bodies of those who fight in the army of Satan will be beaten back to the base elements for a time, after which they will reorganize into their old forms and thus spend the rest of eternity.
Kate
I don’t know what your ward teaches, but I have had many discussions on this topic in Priesthood and Sunday School. It comes up in most every discussion of Eternal Life and in the lesson on D&C 132.
Speaking of the Bible, 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.”
grindael,
Thanks for the information. I agree, it’s disgusting. I’m wondering how many Mormons actually know about that, I’m guessing it’s very few. Interesting “guidelines” this Albert Carrington had on what adultery is. Of course at this time, most higher ups in the Mormon leadership were committing adultery every day themselves and dragging women, some already married into adultery to boot.
Rick,
I don’t pay much attention to Shem. He posts his opinion, nothing more. Take the Adam/God doctrine we discussed on another thread. He not only went against Brigham Young’s teachings and revelations, he went against the LDS church’s admission that he taught it as doctrine. I’ve seen more of the same from him on other threads. When it comes to authority, he has none, so that leaves us to look at the LDS leaders past and present for accurate information. The LDS church has always been good record keepers, much to the chagrin of the current members and leadership!
falcon,
I highly doubt Mormons actually check out the statistics. I had it drilled into my head just how many millions of members the church has and how it’s the “fastest growing church in the world!” If we look at numbers from other churches LDS numbers aren’t all that impressive and not something I would be shouting from the rooftops. The Seventh Day Adventists have more members than the LDS and they started up around the same time as Joseph Smith ( in the 1840’s I think) Does that make them more true than the LDS? There are over 480 million Hindus, that is a staggering number compared to the LDS, but does that make the Hindus more true than the LDS? My Aunt boasted to me one day about the LDS having the largest missionary program in the world. Really? Look at Joyce Meyers and the missions she does. Only they’re actually out building communities, housing, and feeding the poor. They’re not out knocking door to door trying to gain membership for a religious institution so they can boast numbers. There are many Christian missions like this and this is the difference between Christian missions and Mormon missions.
Shem,
“I don’t know what your ward teaches,”
Thank heavens I don’t have a ward anymore. I get my teachings from God’s Holy Word and Jesus himself and I’ve given up on the teachings and doctrines of men. Yes I attend a Christian church at times, but my Pastor always teaches from the Word of God. There is such freedom in Jesus. May you find that freedom one day.
What we all need to think about is that the phrase “calling and election made sure” is one of those phrases that the LDS have cherry picked and created an entire doctrine around. If we look at
2Peter 1:2-11 it explains exactly what this means.
Calling and election made sure means something totally different in Christianity than it does in Mormonism. If 2Peter is read in context, it’s easy to see the Mormon version is a made up lie.
Kate, Talk about Mormons cherry picking,
Here is a good one. The Bible says
Rick,
I hate to get too harsh here but Shem called you “ignorant” and yet look who’s in a cult. It certainly isn’t you. It would seem that that insult or label could be applied to our buddy Shem.
What we see in Shem is someone who has been able to create his own form of Mormonism. Is it any more ignorant than to interpret the Bible without any firm systematic way of doing so? There’s a problem with these folks who want to believe they are receiving instruction from the Holy Ghost when in fact they don’t even know who the Holy Ghost is.
God has provided the means by which we can read and understand His Word, but first we need to know who God is. So when folks like Shem acknowledge “God” as one of many gods who used to be men, well turn the lights out the party’s over.
That’s why the Church Fathers had so much difficulty with the heretics. These heretics would claim to have access to secret knowledge that gave them special spiritual insights.
Guys like Shem are nothing new especially when it comes to aberrant religious cults. They just kind of make it up and think something is true because it makes them feel good and they believe it. That’s said to be being led by the spirit. Notice I use the small “s” there.
As for not understanding Brigham Young, that is just an excuse. His words are easily understood, if you want to understand them.
In case this was missed, I posted it on the other thread, Mormonism & Behaviour,
Let’s read the quote. Young begins by asking what would happen if members say,
When that happens, says Young,
Young doesn’t say “those who fight in the army of Satan”, he says “the rebellious”, or those that rebel against the gospel, or those who seek after the world. (The opposite principle seizes YOU),
and he says they will be “reorganized”. He then says that some say that this would lead to the reorganization of Satan himself, and as to this, Young says that the scriptures answer it, that the Lord will destroy DEATH, which is Satan. And Young’s teaching of what true destruction is, is the total annihilation of the person, to exist no more and to be reorganized to be recycled again at some future time. He says this because it was taught (by Smith) that matter could not be totally annihilated.
And again Young makes it perfectly clear what he meant here:
And in case you didn’t notice Young taught additional false doctrine in that quote by saying that God did not possess all knowledge and that he would continue to learn.
That’s the tough thing about being a Mormon.
You have to continually make excuses for and come up with fantastic explanations to cover all of the bizarre, idiotic and just plain stupid comments by the “anointed”. I think the explanation(s) most favored by Mormons are that it was just the prophet’s opinion or that we really don’t know the “context” within which the comments were made.
We ask what the possible “context” could have been to explain the inane comments and we never get an answer. I can’t remember which former Mormon it was who used to post here, but he said that he left Mormonism when he got sick of trying to defend it.
So according to our Utah Mormon posters, they have the real true Christianity that was practiced by the first century Church. The Christianity that we have today, in-other-words, lost the real thing after the death of the original apostles. So do we have any evidence of this including the ritual practiced today by Utah Mormons that anoints people as having made it into the “god” club? Nope, not one shred of evidence. And what about all of the changes in Mormonism over the years and the number of different sects of the religion all teaching a different restoration and claiming to be the holders of the truth?
I think we know who’s ignorant.
As I was reading through grindael’s posts I kept thinking about the past few LDS prophets. You would never have heard them preach this way. Why? Isn’t it interesting that the only time you really hear Thomas Monson speak is at general conference, and then it’s usually about good, clean living or faith promoting stories. It’s not really about any specific doctrine. No wonder as a LDS I didn’t know squat. Just milk from the lessons and how to be chaste, proper dress for a LDS girl, how many piercings in my ears are appropriate, put food in my storage, plant a garden, emergency preparedness, etc. Do those things really prepare someone for eternal life?
I’m sure Mormons will say that grindael has taken Brigham Young’s sermons out of context or BY didn’t really mean what he was saying, or we as non LDS can’t possibly understand what he meant, or my favorite, it doesn’t matter, we only follow the current prophet’s teachings!
So I’m wondering just who gets this 2nd anointing. Do lay members ever get it or is it reserved for the prophet, apostles and their family and friends. What does one have to do to get this blessing? I was reading about it on a site posted by an LDS member and the part that was really interesting to me is that the wife has to wash her husband’s feet. What? If this is true then I am really appalled.
“The couple is then taught how to administer the second part of the ordinance, the washing of feet in preparation for the husband’s burial, which the couple will perform in their own home.”
“The wife washes and anoints her husband according to the pattern given in John 12. Thus what the wife does is in memorial of what Mary did. The rite is understood to prepare the husband for burial and to give the wife claim on him in the resurrection.”
You can find this information at this site:
http://ldsendowment.org/secondanointing.html
Gee I’m going to use up all my posts today hahaha! It just hit me that if the washing of the feet is patterned after John 12, does that mean that Mary has claim on Jesus in the resurrection? I do know that some Mormons believe that Jesus was not only married but a polygamist. Anyone have thoughts on this?
Kate,
The whole religion is just one big religious circus.
The problem is, as I’m sure you know given your background, these people believe they are the spiritual ones!??!
They think this because they think they have this super spiritual insights and personal revelations that this is how the religious system works. As you, who have been on both sides of this farce know, it’s about impossible to disabuse TBMs of these false notions.
I’ve stated it often but I think it really captures the mind-set of people caught in these cults. That is, the more bizarre, convoluted and just plain nutty an idea is, the more cultists embrace it.
It’s the nutty nature of the belief that leads them to think they arr special spiritually for getting it. The rest of us are in the reading group with the crows while they are with the bluebirds.
Thank the Lord for the fact that there are a small number of people even within the Utah Mormon sect that are really into this. Now if they could only come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ they’d be on the pathway to eternal life.
LOL, reading over all of this , I keep it simple, Any body in the Grove with Joseph early in the spring of 1820 ? zip, zero,thats where is ends, it would had been easy if he said my 3 brothers and myself on April 17 1820 at 7:45 am till 11:25 were in the grove, I know this is off topic, but that is what the Mormon church is off topic
Ironman,
Check out the testimony of Charles Finney who lived at the same time and area of Joseph Smith. Notice any similarities? Finney became one of the great American evangelists of all time. Smith became a cult leader.
“…… after this distinct revelation had stood for some time before my mind, the question was put, ‘Will you accept it now, today?’ I replied, ‘I will accept it today, or I will die in the attempt.’” He started for the woods to pray; but again his pride appeared, and he found himself skulking along under the fence, for fear some one might see him. As he entered the woods, he said, “I will give my heart to God, or I will never come down from there.”
“A quarter of a mile in the woods he crept into a covert where great trees had fallen across each other, making a closet for him. He thought that he could be alone where he might pray freely and not be overheard! But lo! when he came to try, he was dumb; he had nothing to say to God! He found himself fast verging to despair, and he cried, “My heart is dead to God, and will not pray!””
“He thought several times he heard a noise, and he stopped to listen and see if any one was overhearing him. Then and there the senseless, wicked pride of his heart was revealed to him. “An overwhelming sense of the wickedness of being ashamed to have a human being see me on my knees before God took powerful possession of me. The sin appeared awful, infinite! ‘What!’ I said, ‘such a degraded sinner as I am, on my knees, confessing my sins to a great and holy God, and ashamed to have any human being, and a sinner like myself, find me on my knees, endeavoring to make my peace with an offended God!’ It broke me down before the Lord. I cried at the top of my voice that I would not leave that place if all the men on earth and all the devils in hell surrounded me.” Then his heart was melted, and his tongue was loosed, and he could pray.”
In Smith’s first account of the first vision, his purpose for going into the woods, he said, was to seek after the assurance of the forgiveness of sins. As time passed he embellished the story.
More from Finney:
“There was neither light nor fire in the room; nevertheless it suddenly appeared perfectly light. As I went in and shut the door after me, it seems as if I met the Lord Jesus Christ face to face. It did not occur to me at the time, nor for some time afterward, that it was wholly a mental state. I have always since regarded this as a most remarkable state of mind; for it seemed to me a reality that He stood before me, and I fell down at His feet, and poured out my soul to Him. I wept aloud like a child, and made such confessions as I could with my choked utterance. It seemed to me that I bathed His feet with my tears. I must have continued in that state a good while, absorbed with the interview. I returned to the front office, and found that the fire that I had made of large wood was nearly burned out. But as I turned and was about to take a seat by the fire, I received a mighty baptism with the Holy Ghost. Without any expectation of it, without ever having the thought in my mind that there was any such thing for me, without any recollection that I had ever heard the thing mentioned by any person in the world, the Holy Spirit descended upon me in a manner that seemed to go through me, body and soul. I could feel the impression like a wave of electricity going through and through me. Indeed, it seemed to come in waves and waves of liquid love. It seemed like the very breath of God.
“No words can express the wonderful love that was shed abroad in my heart. I wept aloud with joy and love; and I do not know but I should say I literally bellowed out the unutterable gushings of my heart. These waves came over me and over me and over me, until I cried out: ‘I shall die if these waves continue to pass over me. Lord, I can not bear any more!”
I would call this second anointing a little different than what Mormons are offering those who think they are going to become gods.
Hey Falcon,
I really believe that Shems keeps saying I am ignorant because I am hitting close to home with him. Like you and others here, I give Quotes from former leaders and presidents, and as usual I hear that unless I am LDS I simply dont understand, Yet Shem admits He does not understand some quotes. I really believe He understands the ones he claims not to, But if he admitted to understand, he would then be accountable.
I also believe Shem keeps saying I am ignorant because People will read him saying that, then say, well it must be true since Shem said so, so this way they wont read what I quote.
So NOT looking to debate Shem’s favorite Topic, Adam God, But I want to post this to make my point.
Shem said to me under the topic,
The “Most High” has potentially billions of ancestor-gods?
So If Mormonism has never changed doctrine, why do we find in this quote where BY says it is a doctrine that BY revealed to people? Then He says Adam is our father AND GOD?
O-wait, BY said it was Doctrine But I’m not Mormon, so I must somehow be ignorant and misunderstanding it.
What about this?
Again BY says Adam is our God and it is a DOCTRINE he reveled.
Notice BY also says, some years ago, So a few years have passed and He still teaches and believes it and calls it doctrine.
BY says here that all sermon he sent out are as good as Scripture,
Kate,
The early leaders of the church taught that Jesus was married and practiced polygamy. This statement by Joseph Smith is said to have been made in relation to him being a descendant of Jesus Christ:
Smith and Young claimed to be of the “Royal Lineage” and were entitled to the Priesthood by BLOOD and LINEAGE:
For a more thorough study on this go here. Ogden Kraut, Jesus Was Married.
What’s it like belonging to be religion that claims to be the restored original Church of Jesus ,
and yet contains a ” gospel ordinance ” that few members of even heard of , let alone know
what it entails ? The Second Anointing , a secret ceremony created by Mormon prophets.
More and more of the Mormon people are starting to realize that their leaders have created some
type of fraternity club that has drifted away from what we see described in the New Testament
about Jesus’ church , and this secret ordinance is yet another example of why Paul warned
believers to be on the lookout for counterfeits—Gal,1:8
People who belong to these cults, especially the converts, go through a downward spiral in their thinking and reasoning ability in regards to the religion.
Mormons have cleverly labeled this “milk before meat” but in reality it’s a clever ruse and a not so subtle form of seduction. It starts from the beginning where the prospect is “love bombed” or made the absolute center of attention. There’s a point where the relationship gets flipped and the served becomes the servant to the cult.
Indoctrination is used to get the prospect to submit to the system. If a person doesn’t buy all of the features of the religion and especially if they have no fears of the various sanctions associated with it, they can maintain a certain amount of autonomy. This is rare since the removal of good will is one of the prime techniques to keep people in line.
Holding out some false promises, even the super secret final god-maker ritual, is all part of the religious game. The secret nature of the rituals gives off a real “in crowd” , “out crowd” vibe.
grindael,
You have certainly done your homework. Wouldn’t it be nice and a little less confusing if the current LDS prophet would stand up and preach their doctrine the way prophets have done in the past? Warren Jeffs isn’t afraid to reveal things from his prison cell. A few weeks ago the news was reporting Warren’s prophecy of the end of the world on that Sunday and everyone needed to have a blue backpack and do this and that. The followers of Warren Jeffs were doing exactly what he said and a family member looked at me and said “Why would they follow him? I guess they are just brainwashed!” I had to lift my jaw up off the floor. Reading the stuff that the early leaders said and revealed is far more in line with Warren Jeffs than Thomas Monson.
It’s funny that BY brings up why he thinks the Freemasons won’t allow Mormons into their fold. I would dare guess it had more to do with the stealing and revealing of their secret rites and rituals that the Mormons were using in their temple than the practice of polygamy.
Sorry Sharon, we got a little off topic. I can’t think about just one thing, maybe you’ve noticed 🙂
falcon,
“The secret nature of the rituals gives off a real “in crowd” , “out crowd” vibe.” I was thinking this same thing, that’s why I wonder just who gets this 2nd anointing. I would bet that for the most part it is the prophet, apostles and their family and friends. Of course that question will never be answered because who is IN is just so darn sacred.
Mike
As I stated, most members know of the doctrine, so while the actual ordinance is not openly discussed, the concept of it is known and sought after.
Rick
I would refer you back to our previous discussion on Adam and God, making only one note here: Never does Brigham Young state that Adam is Elohim, or the Head of the Gods. Whatever else he says Adam is not elevated to that stature.
Kate
I do not state my opinion. I state the fact of the doctrine. If it is my opinion I declare it to be so. I have authority to do so, as I am an ordained elder in the church, and through the power of my priesthood I have authority to expound doctrine to all the world, and am called to do so. I do not have authority to introduce new doctrine, but I have the authority to declare what has already been revealed. Ignore it if you want, but that is the truth of the matter. (D&C 68:4; see also D&C 20).
Falcon
I do not use the term ignorant as an insult, but merely as a fact. I myself on ignorant of many things, and feel no shame in admitting it.
On the points of the doctrine of the LDS church, however, I am not ignorant, but have a firm understanding. Thus I am in a position to correct the ignorance of others on these points. However, until they realize their own ignorance no correction will be possible, which is why I am frequently reminding people of their ignorance, so that they can put themselves in a position to be corrected and learn.
Grindael
I apologize. I made my last comment before I had returned to the previous thread. I thank you for the reference, but it changes nothing. His adultery made the promise void, and it was never restored, as proved by the other references you give on the previous thread. Thus it is an error on your part to use him as an example, unless it is as an example of how one can loose that promise.
Speaking of Brigham Young’s words, there is much that is not made clear in his words, and much that you are not accurately portraying.
You claim “Young doesn’t say “those who fight in the army of Satan”, he says “the rebellious”, or those that rebel against the gospel, or those who seek after the world.”
Yet, when he speaks of the rebellious he is speaking in the context of the final great battle after the Millennium. He is talking about those who rebel against God in the end and fight in the armies of Satan in that final battle. His previous comments regarding the effects of rejecting the Gospel are not part of the same context, except in that if you continue on that path you will eventually find yourself among the rebellious in that final battle.
What is not made clear in his words is what he means in saying they will be reorganized, or even what he means in saying they will be beat back into the native element. He specifically makes no comment on what this entails concerning Satan, only that he will be destroyed, though the element he is made of can’t be annihilated. Honestly his meaning is not clear. However, I think what I have given seems more likely to be his meaning than anything else, especially since he still describes it as “their dust.”
Lastly, I have no problem accepting that Christ was married, or that he had multiple wives. I know you think this blaspheme, but I couldn’t really care less. Aside from this I make no comment.
However, as regarding Joseph Smith as his right to the Priesthood by blood and lineage, I think people who claim this is referring to a lineage in Christ do not understand the doctrine of the Church, or even the history of the Bible.
Jesus was a Jew, descended from Judah and of that Tribe. Joseph Smith was of the tribe of Ephraim, descended through Ephraim the son of Joseph. Ephraim was the Tribe that had the birthright, and thus holds the right of leadership in Israel, which right includes the priesthood. This was taken from them for a time, but was to be restored in the last days. This is the right of blood and lineage that Joseph Smith is talking about.
Shem,
I think you think you know/understand Mormon doctrine. I’m not so sure you do understand Mormon doctrine. I don’t think anyone does because it’s wide open to all sorts of interpretation which is what I think you do. Kate said that she wasn’t taught what you are proposing here. I think you and one of our Mormon posters TJay just find your own interpretation and comfort level with Mormonism.
Anyway none of it’s true anyway so you’re wasting a whole lot of time on nothing more than a religious hobby. Those of us who aren’t Mormon have the charge of bringing the truth to Mormons who are working their way out of the maze.
Shem,
“I do not state my opinion. I state the fact of the doctrine. If it is my opinion I declare it to be so. I have authority to do so, as I am an ordained elder in the church, and through the power of my priesthood I have authority to expound doctrine to all the world, and am called to do so.”
Whooaa, back up. Are you saying that any man who holds the LDS priesthood can “expound doctrine” to all the world? Seriously? What about those faithful priesthood holding men who have found long buried doctrines and have been called in for a “court of love” because they have been “expounding” those doctrines to others in the ward? Doctrines that are still part of the church or still in LDS scriptures (think polygamy ). You have been wrong on some doctrines discussed here and have been shown quotes from the modern LDS church (Adam/God was taught by BY and is false doctrine.) showing that what you are “expounding” on is not what the LDS church believes. You do not have authority to speak for the LDS church. I guarantee the LDS church would not back you up on anything you say, but would tell the world it is only your opinion and you do not represent the LDS church. Do you honestly think that the LDS church won’t throw you under the bus? Past prophets are thrown under the bus, what makes you so special? Wow the arrogance here is staggering.
grindael,
I took some time to read through the information in the link you provided. Now that is Mormonism! It’s no wonder that the current LDS leadership distances themselves from these crackpots. Were you once LDS? I may be mixing you up with someone else.
Here’s D&C 68:4
4 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.
So if any Mormon man holding the priesthood speaks when they ” feel” moved upon by the holy ghost and it’s considered scripture, the will of the Lord, the mind of the Lord and the word of the Lord, then why do these men need a prophet or apostles? Shem are you telling us that what you state here is scripture by your priesthood authority? I’m just trying to understand exactly what it is you are claiming about authority.
Kate, I am so glad you posted the from the D and C. That proves right their Shem is the ignorant one who wants nothing to do with the truth.
First off, BY stated ADAM GOD was doctrine, You cannot tell me Young was speaking only his opinion, when He said it was doctrine, and everything he sent out was scripture.
Then I’m willing to bet that if Young was a prophet in the church that verse from D and C would have applied to him.
Them when Shem trys to say BY never said Adam is Elohim, and that proves he did not mean what he said, I call bull on that. How many Mormons over the years have fought to say, Adam is not God and if you believe it, it is false Doctrine? Many over the years have claimed they, that tells me all these people knew BY meant Adam is God, IE Elohim.
BY never said, Adam is a God, or one of many Gods, as Mormons teach their are millions of Gods. Mormons do not get up in arms over claiming millions of gods, or that we can be gods someday, they dont freak over the Bible saying, I know of no other gods, but the the pearl claims God sat in the counsel of the gods.
So that tells me that BY clearly meant Adam was God/Elohim, even though he never stated Elohim, the vast majority of LDS freaking out over the years proves that point. But Ignorance is bliss, But Eternal damnation wont be fun Shem.
Rick, quick note here:
As I recall, Brigham Young’s theology did not identify Adam with Elohim. In Adam-God theology, Elohim is not identified with God the Father, but rather with a higher deity – plausibly a Heavenly Great-grandfather, where Jehovah is then Heavenly Grandfather, Adam/Michael is Heavenly Father, and Jesus is the Son. (Remember, the “Elohim = Heavenly Father, Jehovah = Son = Jesus” is a later perception that really only became dominant in Mormon theology during the synthetic reconstruction at the start of the twentieth century, in part through the efforts of James E. Talmage and the First Presidency message “The Father and the Son”.) So technically what Shem says is correct, but it is essentially irrelevant in terms of exculpating Brigham Young. Young did clearly identify Adam/Michael as God the Father, the God to whom the legitimate worship of residents of this earth is most properly directed – and, as you rightly noted, he taught this now-defunct core theological concept both in private and in public as a revealed doctrine. It’s when Shem seeks to evade this point that bull is rightly called.
Shem,
As intrigued as I am to hear you address the Adam-God issue more directly, right now I’m even more curious about what you would say about some crucial issues pertaining to the present post. That is, what explanation might you offer of the peculiarly secretive nature of the Second Anointing? Given the history of the decline of the ordinance’s frequency, what do you make of that shift? And, what do you make of the potentially antinomian implications of the blessings promised, how do you navigate that in light of the traditional Mormon polemic against Christian teachings regarding assurance of salvation? (And, of course, I admit I’d love to hear a further explanation of your remarks about your priesthood authority to expound doctrine.)
Apology accepted.
You are incorrect. Carrington did indeed have his Calling and Election MADE SURE, by being sealed by the “Holy Spirit of Promise” (his 2nd Anointings). Nonetheless, Smith says,
This is precise and explicit. Carrington committed adultery, a sin that is NOT one of the two, therefore the promise CANNOT be revoked. That is why Smith also said,
And this,
That is why Orson Pratt said in 1855,
The ONLY exception is those two sins that Joseph Smith mentioned in D&C 132:
Your quote from the Doctrinal New Testament Commentary is LATER TEACHINGS about the 2nd Anointing that have reinterpreted what Smith ORIGINALLY TAUGHT. The original penalty for committing ANY sins EXCEPT MURDER & the SIN AGAINST THE HOLY “GHOST” was to be “destroyed in the flesh” and “delivered over to the buffetings of Satan UNTIL the day of redemption” AFTER WHICH TIME, they WILL “come forth in the first resurrection and enter into their exaltation”, which is to become GODS. This was because they were SEALED by the HOLY SPIRIT OF PROMISE for,
When Carrington had his blessings restored, his SINS WERE REMITTED. Even Spencer Kimball said that there was power in the church to do this,
That doesn’t mean the PENALTY for the sins was remitted. Carrington still had to endure being “buffeted by Satan” until the “day of redemption”.
Here is what Young actually said,
Where is Satan in this? He only says “the rebellious”.
THEN he mentions Satan,
He only includes Satan AFTER he says “the rebellious”, and the first part of the quote is about people that turn away, or REBELL, and how Christ will deal with them when he returns. It is crystal clear what Young is saying, but you don’t want to see it.
It wasn’t Joseph Smith, it was Brigham Young. Smith’s being a descendant of Ephraim would not be considered blasphemy by any, would it? But his being a descendant of Jesus Christ would. And someone could be of the line of Ephriam, and of Judah. This would come about by intermarriage.
And this came from Brigham Young who said,
This stuff has been taught in the Church by many,
Heber C. Kimball believed that he was a literal descendant of Jesus Christ,
Since Young, the Kimballs and the Smith’s all claimed to be inter-related, they all claimed the Christ lineage, and notice that Kimball’s last comment is almost exactly the same kind of comment that Smith made, (You don’t really know who I am). Of course these men were all better than everyone else in their minds, and this was the ultimate elevation for them, to be a literal descendant of Jesus Christ. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Hey John,
I know this topic is not about Adam God, and I am not looking to change the subject. I also know Shem does not want to debate it, I only mentioned it to prove a point, That was Shem saying Mormon Doctrine HAS NEVER CHANGED.
My points were/are, BY taught ADAM GOD as Doctrine, now it is taught as false, So yes Mormon Doctrine Has Changed.
BY claims it was both Scripture and Doctrine, and years passed and he then again states this much, so His “Opinion” Never changed, and it was not His Opinion, since he claimed this “DOCTRINE” Was reveled to him by God and we must all sooner or later here it and our salvation hangs upon it.
Then regardless of whether Adam God is Elohim or not, that does not change the facts of what I said and what BY taught. Also BY Claimed Adam IS “OUR” God, Elohim or not, He clearly made Adam out to be more than just a god among the gods, he made him out to be “OUR” God by saying Adam is “OUR” god.
So If BY taught and believed this, then yes Mormon Doctrine has changed, if BY as the LDS teach taught False Doctrine, then he lead people astray and he is a false prophet, therefore rendering Mormonism False. Either way it is Lose/lose for LDS and will result in eternal death since they are following a false prophet. That was my point since Shem seems to claim we are all ignorant and he claims he is and has been at times and is open to correction if proven.
I want more than Shem to say, He’s wrong, I want Him to Find Jesus and receive eternal Life found in only Jesus, and then for Him to lead people to Jesus, not Joseph Smith and eternal darkness.
Grindael
I am not wrong. You are just not getting the whole picture.
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.”
Thus, if one commits adultery the sealing power of the marriage covenant can be made void. As this sealing power is required in order to have the 2nd anointing, then loosing that sealing constitutes a loss of the 2nd anointing.
It is spelled out so clearly in this section. The reason that it is not listed with murder and blaspheme is because one cannot have the promised restored after committing these offenses. These two acts forever bar the person from eternal life. Adultery does not do so, but can result in the loss of the blessings. It is also true that it only results in such if the wife or husband of the adulterer chooses to break the sealing between them, or if the person is excommunicated, as this automatically breaks the sealing.
In the case of Albert Carrington, he was excommunicated, and thus the sealing was broken. As a result he could not have the promise of the 2nd anointing, as he was no longer sealed in the New Covenant to his wives.
This was not introduced later on, but is the clear doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, as is clearly seen in this revelation, and is made even clearer in the commentary I sited.
Don’t tell me I don’t know this doctrine.
As to Joseph Smith and his lineage, none of the quotes you give state that he was a descendent of Christ, with the exception of the quote that is referenced by Dr. Swanson. Now, this may have been said, but until I am able to read the quote in its original context I make no judgments.
Personally, I think Christ likely had children, and I think the Bible supports that idea. I know you think it blaspheme, but again, I don’t care.
John
Q. “what explanation might you offer of the peculiarly secretive nature of the Second Anointing?”
A. The blessing and Promise of being sealed unto eternal life, or having your calling and election made sure, is wondrous thing. However, it is very personal; a covenant that is made with the utmost reverence and honor. Now, I make no comment as to the story given in the article. I have never been privy to any such ordination or to the circumstances surrounding it. But I do know that it is the most sacred of ordinances.
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.”
I have no problem with God keeping secret what is sacred. I don’t understand why anyone else does.
Q. “Given the history of the decline of the ordinance’s frequency, what do you make of that shift?”
A. What history? Honestly, I couldn’t tell you how frequent it was performed in the past, or how frequently it is performed now. Nor do I care. It is not my place to seek out the judgments placed on others. In that regard I am concerned only with my own soul.
Q. “And, what do you make of the potentially antinomian implications of the blessings promised, how do you navigate that in light of the traditional Mormon polemic against Christian teachings regarding assurance of salvation?”
A. Having this blessing does not come simply by confessing faith. It comes only after you have been tested and proved that you will seek only to follow the Lord and do his will. Abraham was so tested when he was commanded to offer Isaac. Job was so tested in his great trials. It takes faith as we find in these men, and the willingness to act on that faith, and do whatever the Lord commands, regardless of our personal feelings int he matter, before we can even hope to gain this blessing. This is something that we have to work for, not something we are simply given. And even after we have attained this blessing it is still possible for us to fall and loose it, and so we still must remain willing to do all. A man cannot say “I have had my calling and election made sure, so now I can do what I want.” Such an attitude would not have received the blessing in the first place.
Speaking of Adam and God, I could say a lot. I have read much of what Brigham Young said on the matter; and while he said many things that are odd and place Adam in a position that does not appear consistent with the scriptures, he never equated him with the Head of the Gods, the deity that we worship, who is called our Father in the Scriptures. That personage is Elohim, and he never denied this point. He also always taught that Jesus was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, and the Son of Elohim. In all that I have read the closest comparison I have seen is in possibly equating Adam with the Holy Ghost, for he declares that the ruling presidency in Heaven was Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael; perfectly represented in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
“I admit I’d love to hear a further explanation of your remarks about your priesthood authority to expound doctrine.”
There is little more to tell. The Elders of the church have all been called and given authority to expound, or teach doctrine. They have been given authority to teach that doctrine from the scriptures, and have been given the promise that when they speak as guided by the spirit their words will be scripture and the will of God.
Now, Kate has already quote D&C 68: 4, so I will quote D&C 20: 42, in which we read some of the duties of an elder. “And to teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church.”
It is my duty to teach and expound. What am I to teach and expound if not the doctrines of the gospel.
Getting more detailed in section 68, let us read verses 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.”
In the modern day we have been taught that every member is a missionary, with the duty to spread the gospel to friends, family, co-workers, colleges, and acquaintances. I am engaged in the missionary work of the church when I comment on this blogs, and thus I can claim this promise.
Now, I do not claim that everything I state here is inspired and thus scripture. Kate said that I do not have the authority to teach and expound doctrine, and that is not true. I have that authority. And when acting in that capacity I have the promise that when I speak by the spirit then my words will be counted as scripture.
What I do not have is the authority to introduce knew doctrine, or to teach speculation and opinion as doctrine, which is why I do my best avoid these things as much as I can.
Shem,
” And when acting in that capacity I have the promise that when I speak by the spirit then my words will be counted as scripture.”
I think I remember BY stating this very thing and Mormons fighting back with “It was only his opinion!”
“What I do not have is the authority to introduce knew doctrine, or to teach speculation and opinion as doctrine, which is why I do my best avoid these things as much as I can.”
Unbelievable. You teach your opinion here as doctrine. Again I have to ask you, ” What makes you special? Why are doctrines and revelations given by BY and other prophets and leaders reduced to just their opinion?” Honestly, how are we to know just what doctrines and teachings to believe when the next prophet in line can undo everything the former prophet put in place? I’ve seen other LDS on here say totally different things about the same topics you have discussed and yet which of you is right? Which of you is speaking scripture through your priesthood authority? Maybe a better word I could use is “official.” Nothing you say is official so it doesn’t count. I think I’ll just stick with Jesus and the Word of God.