That Ultra Secret LDS Ritual | This Saint's Theory 

Great vid Steve. Learned a lot.

I believe that the reasoning on this topic is in error. The first anointing is conditional--ie., subject to one's proven worthiness one can advance and will enter exaltation. The second anointing removes the conditional aspect of the first anointing--the "day will come" has been changed to, the "day has come" if you will. You are correct however that this ordinance does not give one "carte blanche" to commit sin: the penalty is stated in the scriptures that those who sin after receiving it shall be subject to the buffetings of Satan, and destroyed in the flesh (see D&C 132: 19-26, speaking of sealing and the marriage covenant). I thought this through and could only think that since these individuals have been given the unconditional promise of eternal life (save the 2 conditions you mention), whatever unrepented sins must be cleansed through personal suffering "in the flesh," since these souls have attained the ultimate promise eventually. If the ideas you outline were correct, then the scriptures you quote would negate the 2nd Anointing and return the person to a state of being before they received it: in this case, why have the 2nd Anointing at all? In other words, if the entire purpose of the 2nd Anointing is to "seal" the person's exaltation, and unrepentant sins remove the "seal," then as a practical matter, what's the point? A deeper question is whether current Church Presidents should be authorizing and administering this ordinance at all: when originated Joseph Smith administered this to about 20 couples and brought them into the Holy Anointed Quorum. When Joseph Smith died, Brigham Young picked up the ball, and as President of the 12 (not yet as Church President) he presumed he had all the power and authority that Joseph Smith had: he consequently sealed some 600 couples before leaving Nauvoo with the 2nd anointing. The important question is: does each succeeding church leader automatically receive all the powers of the predecessor by virtue of ordination to a church office only? A good analogy would be to think of Elijah--a prophet who was mighty because he had great "sealing" power. This power came directly from God (vertically if you will) not from man to man ordination (horizontally). Likewise, every instance of a man being "sealed" or promised eternal life in the Book of Mormon comes as a direct promise by the voice of God to the individual, not once does it occur as an ordinance or ritual. It seems to me that for the ordinance to be valid it must have the direct intervention of God at some level (or the Church leaders must actually administer through prophecy and revelation to know who God wants them to give it to). Otherwise, you run into the practical problem of arguing that a man can unilaterally bind God to bless someone to Eternal Life, even if the recipient himself is not worthy of the blessing. I doubt that anyone can "loophole" themselves into heaven in this manner. The other practical problem is that unless you are directly involved in higher church leadership (or well-connected to someone who is, and can subsequently recommend you for this ordinance), then your chances of receiving this, absent a direct revelation to an Apostle, is virtually Zero. Take 100 faithful Saints--10 are in high leadership, 90 are not. Guess who will get the 2nd anointing? How does this square with the idea that God is "no respector of persons"?

My friend, let me give you something very sweet to your mind to spend time thinking about. First, this concept You’re discussing is the very act of a person being sealed up to live with God for eternity in the Celestial kingdom on the basis of the recommendation of fallible men with limited ability to “judge” a person’s worthiness. Second, who is it that gives us eternal life and why do we receive it? Is it because we performed a certain ordinance or because Christ performed one for us? Now you can say both and I’ll accept that answer only if you agree that ordinance to be baptism since that is what Christ told us we should do. If these other things are required and important do you think the Savior would have taken a moment to encourage his followers to be on the lookout for more light and knowledge, or could it be this is purely a Masonic idea and a different gospel taught by an angel of light connected to gold plates found in the ground. All Masonic ideas too by the way. It’s important that you know I don’t know the answer to my questions here and I’m trying to reconcile them in my mind as well. You seem like a bright kid and if you have any insight on these I’m open to consider it.

Great work, may you stay this way on your cause, and not to be tempted to go head to head (debate /satan's tool) with other faith.

I find temple marriage, and this whole notion of second anointing hard to reconcile with biblical teachings. For example, the book of revelations which says in the books were opened and the Dead were judged according to their works, it says nothing about according to their annoying things. I was so we read that in heaven, people are neither married, nor given in marriage. If eternal marriage was such, a vital principle, would not Christ have to weld on it a great deal while in this life? I haven’t gone through the temple in the 70s I find the entire Temple ceremony to be frightening and disturbing.

This video does little more than follow the cultural thought process as taught via tradition in the church. Assumptions born of this tradition only lead back to Smith’s interpretation of his own religion.

You’ll never know the truth until you bust out of your bubble and research outside sources.

Man-made rules, not scriptural. Sacrilege. An abomination.

The existence of the second anointing is emblematic of nefarious superiority paradigms that are the core not just all organized religions but especially Mormonism. The video indicates that the practice of the ordinance is rare and predominantly applied to relationship circles almost exclusively containing general authorities. This creates a social condition that makes Mormon society similar to a royal court where proximity to the ruling class allows an individual within elite circles to embellish themselves with ordinances and titles that are dubiously produced by merit and more explicable by position. Given that the highest echelons of Mormon leadership aré occupied by individuals of legacy families that trace their lineages to the religion’s founding and non legacy ones that have held high positions in government and/or business and are mostly wealthy; Mormon society largely resembles a feudal aristocracy. Secrecy, authority, exclusivity, and entitlement are all the tell signs of unjust structure that’s wholly invested in power. It is very convenient that a millionaire general authority that has not disclosed and made it explicit how he’s divested himself from his earthly income generating apparatus to no longer be tied down by the law of tithing, now that only murder and the literal spitting in the face of god can separate them from their righteous reward. Indulgences anyone?

Why the cartoon characters?

Jesus s the Christ one with the Father , and Hoy Ghost, Great God Almighty, nd it is Jesus himself by His blood covenent described in John 17, by which we are sealed to God and each other when we accept Christ suffering death and resurrection. As our own and are reborn in our spirit. No human judgment or ritual necessary, repent, accept his recipus lving. Hearts suffering in our behaf, that sanctifies justifies elevates us by his mercy. Our job? Love him back and love others by his sirit in us. Its ALL his love that seals us. God bless you to know how great his love is. Infinite love. He alone is the way the truth the life no self asc er ntion can dslace his God's sacrifice for us. In Jesus name is say this. John 17 tells all.

The 2nd anointing is a lot of hooey in my opinion. There is nothing comparable to it in any of the established Christian traditions. It implicitly violates the virtues of humility and servanthood which are recurring themes in the New Testament.

I don’t have strong feelings about this topic, but this argument doesn’t make sense to me. Guaranteed salvation can’t be what the second anointing promises because of these scriptures? What does it mean then? I agree there is a conflict here, but there have been plenty of conflicts and contradictions in church history and teachings over the years. Maybe all of this just isn’t literally true.

if %95 of all people on the planet did not/ have not / will not accept Christ and end up In hell or a lower heaven then whose fault is it . If a teacher at a school had a %95 fail rate would you blame the students or the teacher . Billions of souls to suffer for eternity because they were born in a world not of their making by a god who refuses to forgive his children without a blood sacrifice /atonement being involved Forgiveness without bloodshed is true forgiveness.

Interesting. I have received both the Second Anointing and the second comforter. The Second Anointing means nothing, and these men have no authority or keys to confer godhood. All Priesthood above the Aaronic, in other words, the High Priesthood is conferred directly by the voice of the Lord, speaking out of the heavens, I have written many essays, which I will consider submitting. But, I must prepare you. They are based on the scriptures, the writings and speeches of Joseph Smith, and my other personal revelation. I have no interest in regurgitating LDS "doctrine". Church members are told things over the pulpit which are often wrong or unscriptural.