Second Anointings
Many LDS members who have received their Endowment and have been sealed to their spouse in the temple may think that they’ve received the summum bonum of LDS ritual. Not so.
I just stumbled across an account of receiving the ordinance of the Second Anointing (or Second Endowment) in 2002. It is apparently still practiced quite regularly despite being discontinued in the middle of the last century.
A compilation of my mother’s family history casually mentions that one of my ancestors received this ordinance. I thought it odd at the time to see the casual reference because it is not talked about much in the church now. I imagine most members have only heard whispered rumors about this ritual if they’ve heard about it at all.
Reading this account and the comments that followed reminded me of The Inner Ring by C.S. Lewis. The recipients of this LDS ritual are charged to tell no one that they’ve received it lest others in the church envy the privilege. They are promised exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom on only one condition: that they never deny the Holy Ghost. The officiator in the ritual grants them the “[power] to be a member of a Godhead”. In other words, unless they blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, they’ve made it. They have endured to the end and made their calling and election sure.
It must feel pretty spiffy to be a member of such a special club, the inner cabal of an already exclusive church. It must feel even better to believe that you have the power to decide who makes it into heaven. This is yet another way LDS ritual separates “us” from “them”.
Tags: LDS, religion, ritual, ritual violence, second anointings, second endowment, violence
![[Earth Flag]](http://www.blakeclan.org/jon/greenoasis/wp-content/images/earth-flag.png){kind=small}
dpc
said,
February 25, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
I read the same account, but I’m a little skeptical of it and here’s why:
1. The Church has invested millions (if not billions) in temples, yet it appears that temple attendance is abysmally low. If your rank-and-file member was told about the opportunity to receive a “Second Annointing”, you can rest assured that they would be beating down the doors of the temple to get it, especially if it meant that you were guaranteed a place in heaven and the ability to choose when you die. Hell, I bet some ex-members would want to rejoin just to see what it was all about.
2. I think that Benjamin Franklin said that the only way to keep a secret shared between three men was if two of the men were dead. The fact that no one in recent history has talked about it anywhere (in either the Bloggernacle or the exmo spheres) tends to show that it isn’t really occurring. The Internet just about guarantees that any practice anywhere is going to get some air time.
3. The history of the Second Annointing is readily available to anyone with Internet access and a basic understanding of Mormonism. It wasn’t much of a secret back when it was practiced in earnest, and the general content is known. It wouldn’t be difficult to read a few history books, plug in the names of a few GAs and Voila! The Second Annointing comes to life.
4. There simply isn’t any evidence besides this person’s statement. I need more corroboration than an anonymous poster on a website hostile to the Mormon church. Parts of his story (unrelated to the Second Annointing) seem to ring untrue, like the part about how he was going to choose to be a Mission President, but just wanted to learn more about a certain aspect of Mormonism before accepting. It seems atypical of the experiences of other mission presidents that I have known. It doesn’t make the account untrue; however, it does raise some questions in my mind.
On the other hand, I could be totally wrong. It could very well be happening in temples around the world. I could have received it myself and, hoping to deflect criticism and obfuscate the truth, I raise weak arguments against someone else’s creditability.
But I get the feeling that the Second Annointing has gone the way of the dynastic sealing.
Jonathan Blake
said,
February 25, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
You raise valid objections. The most suspicious to me is the source’s anonymity. Regarding some of your points:
1. I knew about the Second Anointing as a member but figured that I wasn’t worthy of it so I wasn’t going to demand it. Perhaps I’m naïve, but I think most members would accept that only the highest ranking members would receive this ordinance.
Also, the spike in temple attendance would probably only be temporary since it’s a one-shot deal. Aside from that, what real benefit is there to the church if people attend more often? The real concern of the church is that people hold temple recommends which means that people are actively participating and that they pay their tithing. Whether or not they use their temple recommend doesn’t matter as much, except perhaps to promote loyalty.
2. I don’t run across a lot of former stake, mission, and temple presidents in the ex-mo crowd, so perhaps accounts of the Second Anointing would be more common if stake presidents left the church more often. Granted I don’t hang out in a lot of ex-mo crowds.
4. The bit about studying more in preparation for a future responsibility paralleled my studying in preparation for fatherhood. A lot of people seem drawn to further study for one reason or another and learn more than they bargained for. This isn’t as suspicious to me as to you.
I obviously think the account could be true. I don’t have solid evidence that it is, so I really can’t rely on it too heavily. Something about it rang true to me. It felt like how the church would handle it to me. I’m probably biased to think it is true.
In any case, the Second Anointing is an interesting and obscure chapter in Mormon history (and perhaps in its present) that members should know more about.
Seth R.
said,
February 25, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
I don’t find anything inherently wrong with group affiliation and identification.
Jonathan Blake
said,
February 25, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Birds of a feather flocking together is one thing. I’m thinking about people who like stamp collecting who hang out together because they share a common interest. This even includes people who go to the same church because they believe similar things. That’s mostly benign (except when we cloister ourselves away from meeting people who don’t share common interests or beliefs).
Taking the next step and creating an inner ring, as C.S. Lewis called it, is entirely different. When the stamp collectors start thinking that they are better than coin collectors, that’s a problem. I characterize this malignant kind of group by the belief that group members are smarter, better, worthier, etc. simply because outsiders “look different”, “don’t know our secrets”, “don’t act like we do”, “don’t think like we do”, “are a different race/gender/ethnicity”, “are less than human”, etc.
The second kind of group is a big problem, and it’s common in the LDS church to believe that the Saints are better than the Ain’ts. Similar to some segments of Judaism, some Mormons believe they are God’s chosen. I have been told from my youth that God foreordained me to be Mormon because of my valiance before I was born. In other words, I am Mormon because I was better than non-Mormons in the pre-existence. Further, temple attending Mormons often believe that they have proven more worthy of God’s blessing than those who haven’t “gone to the temple”. I think it’s pretty clear that for some members the LDS church is a big ego trip whose inner circles are delineated by rituals.
Inasmuch as people can make the LDS church the first kind of group, that’s great, but they have an uphill battle to ignore a lot of that culture and doctrine of exclusivity in the church.
mel
said,
February 25, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
Part of the oddness of the Second A, I think, is that it may not be something the average member would really want for self (why would you want to be so holy — most probably intuit that it wouldn’t be that fun and maybe quite scary) but all the while adds significantly to the average member’s perception of profound mystery and meaning in the one true church.
I for one was aware of the Second A but really didn’t want it for myself … at least not yet.
Jonathan Blake
said,
February 26, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Interesting. I don’t think I ever thought that the Second Anointing would place me under a greater obligation, just that I wasn’t worthy of it.
mel
said,
February 26, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
Heh, yeah well … to those whom much is given, much is required. For backsliders like me this means also shirking as many of the “gifts” as possible … even denying that a gift was ever given.
Now you’ve seen into my soul and found what may be my oldest and most basic failure of faith. Yes, Mormonism scares the shit out of me even with its promises.
Anointed One said,
April 17, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Certain doubts were expressed because of my anonymity. The reasons for not using my real name were (1) to protect my family and (2) to focus on the ordinance as the issue rather than myself.
If anyone wants to check out the validity of my account they only need ask the apostle and seventy present where they were and what they were doing on the date mentioned. They can either confirm (that would be the honest but unlikely response), deny (let me know and I will call them out as liars), say they don’t know (they can check with their secretaries), say they are not at liberty to divulge such details, or not respond at all (most likely).
The ordinance took place as I stated.
Jonathan Blake
said,
April 17, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Anointed One,
Thank you for coming to defend your story. Let me preface this by saying that I truly want to believe that this is happening. I hope you can understand the skepticism.
I can imagine some of the social repercussions if you were to use your real name. Mormons don’t always treat apostates kindly, especially those who divulge secrets. Without your name, however, it would be inappropriate to give a lot of trust to your claims.
I don’t know how much good asking the GAs would do. No answer from them aside from confirmation that they performed the ceremonies described would get us very far.
Perhaps you could get a blogger in a position of trust to verify your real identity and your story, kind of like those anonymous sources in the government that some journalists use. It’s not as good as full disclosure, but it’s something.
If I can help investigate your claims, let me know. Thank you for bringing your story to light even though, as it stands, it must only be accepted tentatively.
ephphtha said,
September 5, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
annointed one?…..i’m sorry, but all the ‘facts’ in your account can be found in historical info on subject…while i would like to assign credibility to your account….if you we and anti-mormon..(gasp!…you are)…this would be an insidious and predictable approach…..