Former Stake Prez Exmo Second Annointing claim

[jay santos]

update: I made this post when I had listened to about 2/3 of it. After listening to the last hour I feel much more sure he's lying. He started out sounding balanced and reasonable. The last hour, he's giving all the exmo talking points, and he's obviously got a huge ax to grind.

[pelagius]

The frequency seemed to slow way down.

Right, there is good evidence (see Buergers book or Dialogue articles on the subject) that Heber J. Grant switched the second anointing to approval by the first presidency and recommendation by the 12. Before that I believe stake presidents were allowed to recommend someone for the second anointing. After that change, frequency drops of dramatically.

[Uncle Ted]

update: I made this post when I had listened to about 2/3 of it. After listening to the last hour I feel much more sure he's lying. He started out sounding balanced and reasonable. The last hour, he's giving all the exmo talking points, and he's obviously got a huge ax to grind.

OK but what does he have to gain by lying about receiving a second anointing?

[Indy Coug]

OK but what does he have to gain by lying about receiving a second anointing?

You don't think that gives him more "credibility", because he was part of the very small (elect) elite in the church to receive such an ordinance and then rejected it all? That's a kind of cachet that your vanilla apostate just doesn't have. It's all about marketing.

[Uncle Ted]

Right, there is good evidence (see Buergers book or Dialogue articles on the subject) that Heber J. Grant switched the second anointing to approval by the first presidency and recommendation by the 12. Before that I believe stake presidents were allowed to recommend someone for the second anointing. After that change, frequency drops of dramatically.

Yes, and apparently Bishops could recommend someone before Joseph F. Smith...

Bishops are not to issue recommends for second anointings: that is the province of Presidents of Stakes, under approval of the President of the Church, and the individuals selected must not be informed until after the issuance of such recommend. As a general rule, such recommends are issued only in behalf of those who have had endowments in lifetime, and have been sealed and lived together faithfully as husband and wife, [p. 53] and who have been valiant in the defense of truth and active in all good works.

Joseph F. Smith
Messages of the First Presidency, Vol. 5: 110-112.

[Joe Public]

This is one of those things that I didn't hear mentioned once in over three decades of weekly church attendance, discovered on the internet, had my wuapinmon/Zelph moment, and then wondered what else I didn't know about my own religion.

[Joe Public]

Also, isn't the Holy of Holies in temples specifically for the Second Annointing? Is it now vestigial, or does it have other uses?

[PaloAltoCougar]

Serious?

I thought that was one of the more popular topics of conjecture on the mish. "Calling and Election Made Sure."

If someone has their C&EMS and then they go apostate, do they become a Son of Perdition?

I wish I could find my first edition Mormon Doctrine (Signed by the author! In his living room!) for some answers here, but if one has one's C&EMS, does apostasy even matter? I would think one could party like it was 2099. If not, then "sure" doesn't mean what I thought it meant.

[RC Vikings]

Serious?

I thought that was one of the more popular topics of conjecture on the mish. "Calling and Election Made Sure."

If someone has their C&EMS and then they go apostate, do they become a Son of Perdition?

I would rather figure out my chipping problems than worry about the deep mystery's of the kingdom.

[Uncle Ted]

I got to the part where he is talking about the actual second anointing. He mentioned that 4 or 5 other couples were there on the same day for the same thing. I think he is BS'ing as well.

[Northwestcoug]

We haven't heard anything on this for over 100 years. It just seems weird. If it was offered to a stake prez in England, it seems it would have been offered to thousands over the past 50 years or so, and you'd have someone tell his kids or something and it would be leaked.

Taken in the context of the endowment ceremony, I'd say it's par for course.

update: I made this post when I had listened to about 2/3 of it. After listening to the last hour I feel much more sure he's lying. He started out sounding balanced and reasonable. The last hour, he's giving all the exmo talking points, and he's obviously got a huge ax to grind.

I haven't listened to it, and at 4+ hours I'm not sure I'm going to. But on the face of it, I have to give it some credibility. He's not an anonymous internet poster spouting off stories without fear of retribution. People know who he is.
I doubt the church would counter his claim, but if he is lying, they could make a statement refuting him.

[TripletDaddy]

I wish I could find my first edition Mormon Doctrine (Signed by the author! In his living room!) for some answers here, but if one has one's C&EMS, does apostasy even matter? I would think one could party like it was 2099. If not, then "sure" doesn't mean what I thought it meant.

"Did you like the dinner I made?"
"Sure"

"Do you like this new outfit I am wearing?"
"Sure"

"Do you want to turn off that game and come eat dinner at the table with the rest of us?"
"Sure"

"Sure" means exactly what it has always meant!

[UtahDan]

update: I made this post when I had listened to about 2/3 of it. After listening to the last hour I feel much more sure he's lying. He started out sounding balanced and reasonable. The last hour, he's giving all the exmo talking points, and he's obviously got a huge ax to grind.

Jay you are killing me with this. This guy maybe lying through his teeth. I have no idea, don't care, don't plan to listen to it. But why do exmo talking points affect his credibility? Why does disbelieving the church or thinking negative things about it make you more likely to be lying? If that is true, then the reverse is also true. The stronger a believer someone is the more likely they are to be lying in support of their church. Does that sound right?

Someone said to today that Mormonism, including ex Mormons, lacks the vocabulary to describe or think about well intentioned disaffection. There maybe all kinds of great reasons to disbelieve this guy, I just don't understand why his beliefs about religion make him more likely to be a liar. This feels like the worst kind of stereo type that we should all be running away from. Have I misunderstood what you meant?

[Non Sequitur]

I had honestly never of second annointings until this thread. I don't get all the secrecy. When the Pope makes someone a saint, it's on CNN.

[PaloAltoCougar]

"Did you like the dinner I made?"
"Sure"

"Do you like this new outfit I am wearing?"
"Sure"

"Do you want to turn off that game and come eat dinner at the table with the rest of us?"
"Sure"

"Sure" means exactly what it has always meant!

The point is made. I wonder if the C&EMS ceremony concludes with "Yeah, riiiiiiight."