Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Welcome Phase3! I’m right there with Rix.
Rix wrote:First, I will say that what the LDS church has done — somewhat whitewashing its history — is very common. IOW, other churches have done the same thing. Even the basics of Christianity have probably been authored and manipulated for the benefit of the “church.” You can take almost any story, even the birth and crucifixion of Christ, and find that there are some serious challenges to their historicity. . . if you do more research, the very existence and mission of Jesus is quite suspect.
It can be quite upsetting to deal with the historicity of the church as well as the historicity of Christianity. Perhaps luckily we are separated by enough time that there isn’t the preponderance of documentation against Christ as there appears to be against JS or the LDS church. Yet all historical documentation is subjective to interpretation.
The best advice given here is:
GO SLOW!You don’t have to make any final decisions or changes today. We all accept that we are on a personal journey and come here for support in that journey. There are lots of different opinions on this site. We try to be respectful of all opinions, but that doesn’t mean we have to accept others opinions. Although, I must say that there is a tendancy to live double lives when someone becomes disaffected with the church and is fully integrated into Mormon culture (potentially with a high profile calling on top of it all). I think this is particularly true when someone first starts to enter Stage 4. They symbols are seen as symbols and become dead so one may no longer feel particular ties to certain gospel principles and norms (including WoW and wearing garments), but feel social pressure to conform due to the perceived consequences (which is only amplified if one is a Bishop). It would be good if you could make your home a place where your husband can feel he is authentic to himself so that he doesn’t have to only do this on business trips. It might be good for his sanity if he were able to get out of his calling as well, but the social stigma of asking to be released from Bishop are probably difficult to overcome (and probably would be hard without sharing his disaffection, which most on this board agree is not the best thing to do). It should also be remembered that outside of the Mormon bubble, there are many virtuous and wonderful people that drink alcohol, use tobacco, and do not wear garments. These really are not accurate reflections of goodness.
It could also be that JS really thought Masonry went back to Solomon’s temple and that he wanted to be sure to restore all things, so he included so much from masonry. There was a really great Dialogue article on masonry and mormonism that shows tons of parallels between Masonry in Illinois during the 1840s and the original temple endowment. Both have been changed since the 1840’s, but they were many times more similar to each other initially. In the vein of StayLDS, I just want to point out that even if JS completely copied Masonic rituals without any Divine inspiration, that does not mean that the temple ordinances cannot have personal meaning and bring you peace, edification, and enlightenment. On the other hand, if you are uncomfortable with JS co-opting Masonic rituals, you can decide to avoid the temple when you partake in the Mormon cafeteria.
I’m happy to discuss this topic, though. I loved the temple as a TBM and was an ordinance worker for several years in Provo. It was also the parallels between Mormonism and Masonry that crystalized my disaffection with the church.
HiJolly wrote:Anytime you take a ‘heavenly’ action and rehearse (or, mimic) it on earth, it points to the thing, it represents the thing, but of course cannot actually *be* the thing, excepting the extremely rare occasions where they occur simultaneously (which does sometimes happen).
I don’t know. Mimicing a ‘heavenly’ action sounds wrong to me, like making a mockery before God. Particularly when JS and others taught that this was literally a ‘heavenly’ action. They believed their “calling and election” was made sure and that they had received an essential ordinance.
Just finished reading this today. I agree with others that Brodie admires JS, but does not believe in him. That’s actually why I read this book. I’ve read many other books on church history that have been positive to neutral on JS from a testimony perspective (such as RSR). I wanted to read what a non-believer would write and how they view all the facts. While Brodie is sometimes vague and does not incorporate ALL of the facts (such as the Magic World View), I think this is largely due to the book being written so long ago, before many of these facts were fully researched. However, the majority of her facts correspond with the other history books I’ve read. Her synthesis of the facts seems largely plausible to me.
I really enjoyed the style of the book with its smooth narrative flow. It is a masterfully done biography.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:At any rate, it doesn’t appear that it was very helpful in keeping JS or others alive that had received their 2nd anointing.
I would have to go back and check, but I got the notion that the second anointing was introduced after JS, under BY’s era. Further reason I consider it “wishful thinking” more than doctrine. But I’m not sure I have the dates right on that. I read that book about a year ago.
According to “Mysteries of Godliness”, the 2nd anointing was introduced in 1843 (pg 58), and JS and Emma received the 2nd anointing on 28 September 1843 (pg 62-63). At least 20 men and the wives of 16 of those men were given the 2nd anointing during JS’s lifetime (pg 63), including Heber C. Kimball, Hyrum Smith, John Taylor, Newel K. Whitney, and Brigham Young (pg 64).
“Mysteries of Godliness” also gives a description of the 2nd anointing similar to that which I posted earlier (pg 66-67). I would be happy to type in and post the quotes from “Mysteries of Godliness” if anyone is interested and if you think it is a more reliable source.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:
Ray’s right, though – that’s all pointless speculation. It would really be cool to be able to decide when you want to die, though. But maybe you can do that through sheer spiritual enlightenment and good health, ordinances notwithstanding. It sounds like something you would think the Dali Lama could do.At any rate, it doesn’t appear that it was very helpful in keeping JS or others alive that had received their 2nd anointing.
Interesting. Thanks for the link. You are right, it was a pretty short, shallow story. About the only thing I think will cause cog-dis is that JS was calling out for the masons to save him when he was martyred. I would have expected less emphasis on it going back to Solomon’s temple and more on the fact that Freemasonry did not actually originate at Solomon’s temple.
hawkgrrrl wrote:MC & Eu – I’m not sure whether to believe the account or not either. I’ve seen it before. I suppose my true skepticism lies at the root of the ordinance. I just don’t believe it doctrinally. As outlined in the book Mysteries of Godliness, I understand why it came about. Yet I consider it in the “wishful thinking” camp. It doesn’t strike me as a valid concept, whether it exists or not. Isn’t every ordinance only effective based on your faithfulness?
Both Quinn and “Mysteries of Godliness” describe essentially the same 2nd annointing ordinances as described, which is similar to the 2nd anointing accounts from journal entries in the early church. I believe there was also a Dialogue article about the 2nd annointing confirming these details. Finally, when I was at BYU my New Testament teacher (who is also on the Church Correlation Committee) taught us about the passage on making your calling and election sure, alluded to the 2nd endowment and testified that they are still performed in the church today. I had stumbled upon the Dialogue article in the BYU library around that same time and emailed her about it. She again testified that they are performed today.
I absolutely believe that it is practiced today in the LDS church. But I’m also with you in that I don’t believe it doctrinally. When you understand the 2nd anointing, so much more of the temple experience makes sense. Of course, as I have previously posted, I view it much as I view Greek or Roman mythology, I can appreciate the myths without believing in them.
Here is the link to a previous thread on how understanding the 2nd annointing clears up some misunderstandings of the modern endowment and D&C 132 (
http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=896http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=896” class=”bbcode_url”> Old-Timer wrote:I’ll keep my response to “skeptical” – and ask that we not try to go into specifics about something that others view as extremely sacred and about which we can only speculate.
Sorry for the “anti” link. Thanks for censoring me. I’ll do better in the future.
mormonheretic wrote:I can’t say I’m an expert on the 2nd anointing, but I am reading a book on the history of temple worship, so I hope to be up to speed soon. As I understand the 2nd anointing, it is some sort of temple ceremony like the Endowment. It is “super secret.” Those who have received this 2nd anointing are basically told that they are guaranteed to get into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, but they must pay for their own sins instead of relying on Christ’s atonement. I expect Bruce in Montana may be a bigger expert on this than I.
“Mysteries of Godliness” gives details on the 2nd anointing. If you aren’t afraid of “anti” sites, there is a contemporary account of the 2nd annointing on RfM, the account of the 2nd anointing itself is not overtly anti [there is no “fear” of anti sites here, but we have a policy of not linking to sites that are anti-Mormon in nature]. 2nd anointings are occassionally, but rarely administered today. You can be relatively confident that all the Qo12 have received their 2nd annointings. There are two parts of the 2nd anointing. The first part is officiated by a member of the Qo12 and takes place in either the Holy of Holies or in a sealing room that has been dedicated for the purpose in temples that lack a Holy of Holies. The first part involves the washing of feet of the man (to clean from the blood and sins of this generation) and the anointing. Men are ordained kings and priests and given the fullness of the priesthood. With the 2nd anointing, in addition to being guaranteed that you will get into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, you are typically given such blessings as that what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, that you have power over death to live until you no longer wish to do so, and that you are now a God. Women are ordained queens and priestesses. The second part is only between the husband and wife. The wife washes her husband’s feet and then lays her hands on his head and pronounces a blessing as the spirit directs.
hawkgrrrl wrote:for those who wish to StayLDS, there’s no question that it’s going to make that harder if for no other reason than Mormons don’t drink alcohol or coffee or tea. If Mormons had a rule that you always wear pink socks on Tuesday, then not wearing pink socks on Tuesday would be a line in the sand. You’d feel naughty or different or defiant for wearing white socks on Tuesday. It’s a deliberate way to “not” stay LDS, to set yourself outside of it. And I say that as your internal experience, not because of what others will think of you. You are making an internal decision.
While I agree in practice with you that breaking the Word of Wisdom is not going to help you stay LDS and will likely help you “not” stay LDS, I don’t understand why WoW should exclusively be in this category. It seems to me that believing the BoM is a literal history, that the word of the prophet IS the word of the Lord and “when the prophet has spoken the debate is over”, and believing that acting on gay attractions is sinful are similar in defining someone who is LDS. I don’t think any of these issues or even WoW have to make you “not” stay LDS if you do not subscribe to them, but it does make you “unorthodox”. Similar to as you described, you are making an internal decision to place yourself outside of the LDS circle if you disbelieve the literal history of the BoM, question the prophet, or support gay marriage.
Old-Timer wrote:(The tea question is outside my response; I am focusing here on alcohol, tobacco, coffee and gorging on meat.)
I’m not quite sure why you place your focus on coffee and “gorging on meat”. I don’t think the health effects of coffee in any way parallel the concerns you have with alcohol. As for “gorging on meat,” TBMs rarely abstain from meat. In fact, studies have shown that Mormons are actually at an increased risk for certain types of cancer due to their higher than average meat consumption. You would think if it was all about health, there would be more emphasis on abstaining from meat. Can you explain your inclusion of coffee and meat?
Orson wrote:why can’t God be in the chemical response that triggers your emotions?
My own thought that I couldn’t be feeling confirmation from God when breaking the WoW, of course stemmed from my belief that the WoW was from God. Of course, if I disbelieve the WoW is from God, I could certainly be feeling spiritual confirmation that God wanted me to break the WoW. In general I am a person who is a conformist. I like following traditions just for tradition sake. Maybe God knew I needed to break the WoW so that I could move forward without the constraints of my Stage 3 views and the pressure to conform that I put on myself.
There have been quite a few claims about the health benefits of tea, particularly green tea. Claims include weight loss, theoretical decreased risk of cancer, decreased risk of Type II diabetes, etc. I can find and post some links to scientific articles if you are interested. Tea tends to have less caffeine than coffee, but it does still contain a significant amount of caffeine. The TBM arguments I have heard against tea and coffee indicate that the contraindication is due to more than just caffeine, including other chemical components and the temperature of the water, but also because “the prophet said so”.
On my mission in Ukraine we were allowed to drink herbal tea, but not black or green tea. Tea drinking is a big deal in Ukraine, almost as big as vodka.
I don’t think men orwomen hold the priesthood, not as its defined by the church as an exclusive authority to act in God’s name that is conferred by the laying on of hands. But that’s just me, in my stage 4 dark night of the soul, where all the symbols are dead.
Very interesting. My experience with breaking the WoW has been quite different from all of these. DW was disaffected first and pulled me into my disaffection, initially, so she was not worried about WoW and was encouraging of me to break it once she learned I was disaffected. I held off for a while as I was quite nervous about it as well. I kept telling myself, “I don’t have to make any decisions today.” Then as I read more church history, I got really angry, and decided I would break the WoW for spite. I went right home, grabbed DWs cup of coffee, and drank some. It actually tasted quite nasty, but I had a second taste just to make sure I was breaking the WoW good. It felt good to let out some of my anger over it.
We went to a tavern a couple of days later and ordered beers. I was nervous at first, but after drinking it and getting over the nervousness, I felt the “spirit.” It was quite odd. That was one point where I decided the feelings I had associated with the Spirit could not be the spirit.
Then I had a cup of coffee at work and it was a great experience. I hung out in the break room with some co-workers chatting over a cup of coffee and I felt a lot of comraderie with my coworkers.
Don’t rush yourself. You don’t have to make any decisions today. You’ll know when it is right.
