Former Stake Prez Exmo Second Annointing claim

[Uncle Ted]

Given the history of the ordinance, I would be quite surprised if they have stopped doing it completely. I can't think of a reason why they would do that. There has also been no statement indicating that they have stopped doing it. IIRC, they simply stopped reporting stats.

After doing a little more research it seems that the practice of second anointing nearly stopped in the 30's but later may have made a come back in the early 40's...

From the Journal of George F. Richards:

December 31, 1942:
This has been a wonderful year for me and my family. . . .I have also been instrumental in renewing the former practice in the Church of administering Second Anointings to faithful members, the practice having gone practically into disuse, only eight such blessings having been administered in the past twelve years. Up to twelve years ago there had been administered in the Church thirty two thousand plus of such blessings. The day before Christmas I was instrumental in getting Pres. Grant to sign recommends for thirteen of the general authorities and their wives and the wives of two others of the Council to their husbands; also a recommend for Stephen L. Chipman and wife, he having had his previously. I am sure that the Lord has inspired what I have been able to do along these lines. Pres. Grant, in our council meeting of a few weeks ago appointed me to administer these blessings and at my request appointed Elder Jos. Fielding Smith to assist me. We are the only ones in the Church having this authority by appointment.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Thanks to Google, I saw the original thread TP wrote discussing the entire ordinance. According to the Area Seventy (Harold G. Hillam), the practice was effectively stopped during the presidency of David O. McKay and upon his death, Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimball were the only people still living who had the 2nd Anointing (or the keys to perform the ritual). Interesting.

more info here (ExMo database site)

[Xander]

We are all investors in the Church. Even me. I just want an earnings report.

People I work with, that go to other christian churches, tell me their churches have full financial disclosure. I really don't see a downside for the LDS church if everything is on the up and up.

On the second anointing, it sounds like it's for the Mormon aristocracy. People who are connected in some way to the top. Shouldn't you be in on that Sooner?

[PaloAltoCougar]

Does anyone else find it disturbing that there is a secret ordinance that may or may not be happening in our temples that extremely active Mormons don't even know about?

If we can't have enough openness from our leaders to discuss the presence or absence of an ordinance, can other things they say (or omit) be trusted?

Hiding things simply does not fly in the information age. It's kind of scary that our church wants to remain a last bastion of secrecy.

This is a simplistic response, but I am a simple guy. If one doesn't believe the Church's leaders are acting under divine direction, then the answer both questions should be "Who gives a crap?" If one believes the Church's leaders are acting under divine direction, then the answers to the questions should be "no" and "yes." It must be frustrating for those who come up with responses that differ from my helpful answer sheet.

[Uncle Ted]

On the second anointing, it sounds like it's for the Mormon aristocracy. People who are connected in some way to the top.

There seems to be some truth to that. Also from George F. Richards Journal:

April 20, 1950:

I obtained permission from President Geo. Albert Smith for my Sons Oliver and Ray and their wives to receive their Second Anointings.

[jay santos]

yes.

Thanks, SU, I know I can count on you for clarification for Mo doctrine.

[SoCalCoug]

What I find interesting is that people think they are entitled to know everything.

What I find it interesting is that some people don't mind having information withheld. Control of information is the key to power.

[Indy Coug]

What I find it interesting is that some people don't mind having information withheld. Control of information is the key to power.

If people didn't have a Holy Ghost Hotline, you might actually have a point.

[Green Monstah]

Take this for what it's worth, but a temple president once told me that the ordinance was performed in the Portland temple.

[SoonerCoug]

Take this for what it's worth, but a temple president once told me that the ordinance was performed in the Portland temple.

Did you just leave it at that? No follow-up question?

[Indy Coug]

Did you just leave it at that? No follow-up question?

Something along the lines of "sorry dude, but if I told you, I'd lose my super powers".

[Green Monstah]

Did you just leave it at that? No follow-up question?

I was a missionary and was with three other Elders in the temple Prez's office. He let us ask a few questions. One Elder asked if the "second endowment" was still performed. I didn't know what he was referring to, and the temple prez said, "yes. They've occurred in this temple" or something like that. This assumes, of course that second endowment = c&ems. Overall, I was disappointed. The answer to my question was "I don't know."

[Jeff Lebowski]

OK, I went back and reviewed the Buerger book. I was wrong about there being a "chapter on second anointings". They are discussed throughout the entire book. Second anointings were so common, such a primary part of the temple ordinances (albeit only administered to a subset of the members), that it was widely known, widely discussed, and widely documented. Makes it all the more remarkable that they are so rare now, IMO.

As others have documented here, the numbers tapered off dramatically at one point and Elder Richards went on a campaign to increase frequency. Not clear what the current rate is as the records are not made public anymore.

Buerger's evidence for current practice is outlined on pages 164-165. He recounts a few cases of people who claimed to have known several people who have received it (kind of weak), but his best evidence is discussions with temple presidents. He documents three personal interviews with acting temple presidents and provides the names, temples (Provo, Oakland, and Idaho Falls), and dates of the conversations. Each indicated that the ordinance is still performed and described the procedure in some detail. He also mentions that it is currently referenced using the term "special blessing". Seems like reasonably solid evidence to me.

[pelagius]

Buerger's evidence for current practice is outlined on pages 164-165. He recounts a few cases of people who claimed to have known several people who have received it (kind of weak), but his best evidence is discussions with temple presidents. He documents three personal interviews with acting temple presidents and provides the names, temples (Provo, Oakland, and Idaho Falls), and dates of the conversations. Each indicated that the ordinance is still performed and described the procedure in some detail. He also mentions that it is currently referenced using the term "special blessing". Seems like reasonably solid evidence to me.

You notice I refer and describe this evidence as well in my some of my posts. I also suggest this is evidence in favor of the continued practiced (but somewhat limited in at least the sense I outline below). I think it is also important (as I noted before) that the temple presidents didn't necessarily all agree that the second anointing still was linked with having your calling and election made sure. In fact, two temple presidents were citing the notion that it was a "special blessing" and not an ordinance that necessarily guarenteed salvation. So part of my point was that, yes, it is likely still performed but the theology is surrounding it is not clear. So even if the second anointing is still practiced (and I think it is), it is not necessarily same as the 19th century version. If you look back at my posts you'll note I am really hammering on not so much existence of a second anointing but the limited evidence of a second anointing that has the same implications as the 19th century version (or at least that was what I was trying to primarily argue because the original interview is arguing for the existence of something nearly identically in practice and theology and I think there is a huge difference between an ordinance that yields a calling and election made sure and one that doesn't ... apologies if that wasn't clear).

[Maximus]

So is there an agreement here on what the doctrine actually is? if someone receives it, are they good no matter what they do?