I suspect virtually ALL Christians believe it is God's sole place to decide who is
and who isn't forgiven of their sins, and who is granted entrance into heaven?

Further, I suspect when more Christians discover this little gem about Mormonism
(how Mormon Leaders have usurped this power from God),
it'll be the deathblow for TSCC's efforts to mainstream, perhaps much worse.

As the one who raised the issue of Mormon blasphemy, I obviously sympathize with your view about the absurdity of the second anointing. But I don't see how Christians will be any more disturbed by it than they already are about the man-God doctrine. That is one of the most powerful reasons they don't think Mormons are Christian.

And in fact, the idea that men can be Gods really subsumes the expropriation of Jesus's powers. The second anointing is nothing more than the church acting as if apostles and prophets are already as powerful as Jesus. I do, however, think that a lot of Mormons will be astonished, and angered, to learn about the second anointing and its implications.

I doubt there's anything yet to be revealed about TSCC that would be a shock to anyone outside of the TBM bubble. It's all so absurd.

Ralph,
you may very well be "spot on" with your observations,
but there's just something about this particular issue
that strikes me as different, in some way.
I can't yet articulate exactly what that something is,
but after a night's sleep perhaps it'll come to me.

Promising Godhood is bad enough, but there's something
even more viscerally disturbing to me about men, in this life,
taking upon themselves the power of Jesus Christ himself to grant salvation.
In effect, becoming the Christ, the Savior of men's souls themselves.
Maybe its just me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2013 09:38PM by heretic.

I could not agree more. I found it profoundly disturbing when I learned about the second anointing.

The only way the ordinance could NOT be disturbing would be if Jesus really was involved, if he showed up to the couple in person and he personally granted the forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life. But to have the church do it on the basis of its own authority and without Jesus doing the judging and forgiving is about the most blasphemous thing I can imagine.

It brings to mind Dostoevsky's The Grand Inquisitor, in which Jesus comes to earth and meets the head of the Spanish Inquisition. The inquisitor talks to Jesus, learns a great deal, and then orders him executed. Why? Because the church is doing fine, thank you very much, and has no need of a savior who could only screw things up.

The Brothers Karamazov should be scripture, not the Book of Mormon.

+1

Amen to that, Brother Heretic. And exaltation. Pre-mortal existance doesn't go over either- polytheism before, polytheism after.

Difficult to keep claiming "I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it," when The Book of Mormon is touring the country.

I had an argument with a priest once that according to the Catholic view of repentance all of our sins were already forgiven. Any sin that we could have because Jesus died on the cross for us.SO why should we go through confession and the rosary and all of this nonsense. It wasn't like we were making any real change in ourselves. We'd just come in next Friday, recite the same sins, be cleansed by saying 2 hail maries and that would be it.
The second anointing appears to rob the person of the need of repentance, just the same as before when they said if I tell you to do something and you do it and I am wrong, the sin is on my head. You are never responsible for your actions so why should you repent. You never have to admit you are wrong. You lose a great gift unless you are extremely careful. You gain godhood while still in a mortal body.
I think even after you have met Jesus as a second comforter, you still can do wrong and there is still a need for repentance.

The second anointing and the idea that if you follow your leader you won't be held responsible for any sins you thus commit are very closely related doctrines. Both are designed to make you overcome your own conscience and do whatever your leader says. That is the doctine of Mountain Meadows, of polygamy, of the priesthood ban, and of the campaigns against gay marriage. In all these instances a person should overrule his or her conscience and support the church because God will not hold that person responsible for any errors he then makes.

This is the doctrine of totalitarianism, since it puts all moral authority in the hands of a small group of men. It is monumentally evil.