imported_Elphaba

Hi Iggy!I've had the opportunity to have a few conversations with Traveler, and while he is a deep thinker, his spelling and grammar are not his strong points. So give the guy a break. I think he genuinely thought "chest" was the right word. Elphaba

I hope your wife is the only person you told that joke to. I have a feeling all of the "chess" players would have looked at you funny--the women would probably have slapped you. Elphaba

I once read the term "anti-Mormon" is a thought-stopping cliche' and I almost did a jig, because, for me, that is absolutely true. I am the only ex-member in my family and therefore have no credibility whatsoever. Since then, I've had two different conversations devolve to each sibling calling me an anti-Mormon because I did not agree with each of them. I was so glad to be able to respond with "That's just a thought-stopping cliche', and no I an not an anti-Mormon. Both times they've been taken aback. One of them agreed with me, apologized and we went on and had a really interesting, respectful conversation. The other left. That made me sad. Elphaba

I just thought I’d put this out there. It’s from this Dialogue article I recommended. Each time I read that article I comprehend one more layer of the “Quorum of the Anointed,” and the “second anointing” that I had before. (I can't get the article to go to page 1, so you'll have to scroll backwards. Sorry.) I felt these quotes addressed some of the issues a few of you brought up before. I don’t have an agenda--I just thought you might think they were interesting. Elphaba Heber C. Kimball explained to a Nauvoo Temple audience on December 21, 1945, “You have been anointed to be kings and priests, but you have not been ordained to it yet, and you have got to get it by being faithful.” This concept was mentioned again by George Q. Cannon in 1883: “. . . in the washing that takes place in the first endowment, they are washed that they might become clean from the blood of this generation . . . In the same way that are ordained to be Kings and Priest--that ordinance does not make them . . . Kings and Priests. If hey fully received of another endowment [i.e., the second anointing], a fullness of that power, and the promises are fulfilled in the [bestowal of the power upon them.” (Salt Lake [City] School of the Prophets Minute Book, typescript entry for August 2, 1883, original in LDS Church Archives; emphasis in original) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I thought this fit in well with mnn727’s and cgrants’ comments, and I would say it is not as clear cut as I previously believed. Everything I have read about the second anointing, and I maintain it has been quite a lot, indicates once you have had it, your exaltation is assured. Now I am not so sure. .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The following is a good example of why I find this, historically, so fascinating. And while later prophets have provided clear cut explanations of what the second anointing is and how rarely it is used today, mnm727 and cgrant are correct that it is not valid without the person’s deep faith and commitment to God and the Church. However, when Joseph restored the second anointing to the Church, they didn’t look at it the same way, and it's definitely one the most fascinating pieces of LDS history to me, for many reasons that I won't go into at this time. From the Dialogue article: In a sense the institution of this “higher ordinance” [second anointing] was the logical next step. The previous twelve years of pronouncements, sealings, and anointing “unto eternal life” guaranteed a status that, according to Joseph’s 1843 teachings, was subservient to that of the gods. From the perspective of these teachings, even the Nauvoo endowment administered to members of the “Holy Order” (what I’ve been calling the “Quorum of the Anointed“) simply provided that the men who received it would live in the celestial kingdom as angels and servants. Until 1843, women had been excluded from these ordinances, possibly because of Joseph Smith’s personal reluctance, Emma Smith’s rejection of polygamy, John C. Bennett’s lurid expose’, and/or the apostasy and subsequent reconciliation of Orson and Sarah Pratt over polygamy. However, Doctrine & Covenants 131 and 132 indicated that this exclusion deprived the men (who had received the previous ordinances) of the highest kingdom of glory--godhood. The higher ordinances was necessary to confirm the revealed promises of ‘kingly powers” (I.e., godhood) received in the endowment’s initiatory ordinances. Godhood was therefore the meaning of this higher ordinances, or second anointing, for the previously revealed promises in Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-26 implicitly referred not to those who had been sealed in celestial marriage but to those who had been sealed and ordained “kings and priests,” “queens and priestesses” to God. Such individuals would necessarily have received the “second anointing”; “Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is an excellent example of how the second anointing, or the “higher ordinance,” evolved into such an important ritual. During this time in the Church, Joseph taught the select elite members of it’s importance and how critical it was. He explained it was only these members who had received the second endowments and lived this higher law that would dwell with Christ in the top-most layer of the Celestial Kingdom. The second anointing also gave the members powers no one else had, such as choosing when to die, and having angels at their beck and call. I find that fascinating. The Quorum of the Anointed was very short-lived--late 1830s to early 1840s. Joseph was extremely inclusive whereas Brigham was not. In conclusion, I find your questions about Emma to be valid, yet ultimately unanswerable. She never lost her faith in the Church, though she did join the RLDS church when her son became the President. And if you read her biography, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, which I imagine many of you have, you get a better idea of why she did not go to Utah. Her reasons were sound, and I know I would have done exactly what she did. But she always remained the incredibly kind and generous person she had always been. I believe I have already mentioned how she took in her husband’s son from an affair, and she treated him like her own. Her life was so full of a heartache we will never know, and she did suffer from some depression. But her strength was phenomenal. In case you can’t tell, Emma is a hero to me. Elphaba

"Actually" is an adverb 1.in fact: used to emphasize that something really is so or really exists, e.g. when it may be hard to believe or when it contrasts with what has already been said (emphasis mine) The bolded part is how I meant it in our conversation. Are you familiar with the "second anointings"? These are much different that the ordinances you receive in the temple today, and in fact, rarely is a married couple given the chance to take a "second anointing" in our modern Church, though it is believed that Church presidents have been given their second anointing. However, in Joseph's day, second anointings were common amongst the Church's elite. It was one more way for Joseph to ensure an eternal familial relatonship amongst those he considered his truest and bravest members of his burgeoning church. What this "second anointing" does is, like I said above, ensure one's exaltation, no matter what happens in their lives. I think it is extremely important to understand that when we say Emma received her second anointing on September 28, 1843, Joseph also received his second anointing at the same time. This is really a significant event in Church history yet the only members who know about it are usually those who are interested in the Church's history, and I assure you, the Quorum of he Anointed is a fascinating subject for we historians. :) I admt I am not sure what revelation you speak of, and would really appreciate it if you'd let me know. If there is something historically inaccurate about my understanding of the Quorum of the Twelve and the second anointings, it is important to me to know about it, as I've researched it fairly extensively and am committed to understanding it completely. If this includes a revelation, I'd gladly take that information as well. Obviously, Joseph played a pivotal role in Emma's receiving her second anointing, and the entire Council believed she was now an exalted Queen and a Priestess who would be exalted in heaven. The same went for all of the other couples who were members of the council. Additionally, there are extant records of the Quorum meetings, including Emma and Joseph's sealings, and Emma's second anonting. The following is an excellent articile about the Second Anointing. Second Anointing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I do not doubt this is true. I am only relating what the Quorum of the Anointed believed during its existance. I have no opinion on its effacacy. I do know, from the minutes taken, that they believed they had received the priesthood of the highest power, which assured them their exaltation. I have no opinion as to whether this is true or not. However, I notice your quote is written by Andrew Ehat, who has done extensive research into the second anointings; therefore, I take your reference very seriously. I have not seen this paragraph before, but I do believe it is reliable, and I plan on following up on it. I am very glad you posted it. I can say Ehat's description of the historical events mirror what I have provided here, as he is one of my sources. I admit I find The Quorum of the Anointed one of the most fascinating pieces of LDS history and am surprised at how few LDS know about it. There's much more to tell about it than just all of the second anointings given. It was a unique part of LDS history. Elphaba Edit: I initially wrote this post late at night when I was tired. When I came back today, after a good night's rest, I was appalled at the typos, and more imortantly, the lack of detail I had written. Therefore, I have gone over the post and made changes to better explain the second anointing, clarifications when needed, and deleteed the run-on paragraphs to be more concise and readable. At least I hope I have. So, if you have read this before noon, 10/10, you probably should read it again, as there have been a few major changes, for which I apologize. E.

Actually, Emma received the "second anointing" on September 28, 1843. She was part the "Quorum of the Anointed" where, for a brief time in the history of the church, 1838 to 1844, both women and men had a governing hand in the Church. I rarely use Wikipedia for a reference, but it is explained so well in this case I went ahead and used a portion of it: LDS Church leaders often connect this ordinance with a statement by Peter in his second Epistle. In 2 Peter 1:10, he talks about making one's "calling and election sure," and further remarks, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy" (2 Peter 1:19). Joseph Smith, Jr. referenced this process in saying, "When the Lord has thoroughly proved [a person], and finds that the [person] is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the [person] will find his[/her] calling and election made sure". The Second Anointing is given only to married couples. A few scholars have argued that because of this women who receive the Second Anointing, in which they are anointed queens and priestesses, are ordained to the "fulness of the priesthood" the same as their husbands. These scholars feel that Joseph Smith may have considered these women to have, in fact, received the power of the Priesthood (though not necessarily a specific Priesthood office). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What this means is at the time Joseph and Emma were sealed together and received their second anointings, they believed their exaltaton was ensured, no matter what happened. Elphaba

Emma actually went on to lead a fairly content life after Joseph's murder. Of course it wasn't easy, especially immediately after his death as she desperately grieved for him. Their love for each other was real, though it had been sorely tested because of his participation in polygamy. Emma tried very hard to accept the principle, but in the end just could not do it. There is some evidence Joseph was going to rescind the practice of polygamy mainly because it was causing the Church's image to be so tarnished, but also to save his marriage. However, it cannot be verified and so should be taken as a possibility only. Another great hardship for her immediately after Joseph’s murder was her struggle with Brigham Young, fighting for what she believed was rightfully hers. During Joseph's life all of his documents, titles, monies, etc. were used to take care of his family as well as the Church. He had never separated the two. Therefore, upon his death Emma insisted she had a right to a portion of these items as she needed them to raise her family. Brigham insisted all of it belonged to the Church and demanded she turn it over. She refused, and an already tense relationship turned into an animosity that lasted for the rest of their lives. However, Emma was an incredibly strong, and strong-willed, woman. She made a life for her and her sons in Nauvoo that at first was difficult but eventually was comfortable. She also met and was courted by Lewis Bidamon, who was an affectionate man who appears to have made Emma very happen. Unfortunately, years into the marriage, Bidamon did have an affair which resulted in a child. However, I believe Emma's reaction to this shows her kind and loving character at its best, as she took in the child to raise as her own. One other thing I believe was a mistake on Emma's part is that she denied Joseph's polygamy to everyone who asked about it, including her own sons, who suffered for it. They grew up believing their father had not been a polygamist, yet when they went searching for the truth it was a blow to them to discover otherwise. Joseph Smith III, the eventual leader of The Reorganized COJCOLDS suffered greatly over the issue. Emma never budged. Emma is absolutely my favorite heroine in the establishment of the Church. When I was a child I would hear how she and Joseph loved each other, but after that there seemed to be a taboo against mentioning her name. Today, I believe the Church is making an effort to acknowledge her contributions, which were considerable and often miraculous. This makes me very glad as she faced every obstacle with courage and faith, including her life after Joseph. Elphaba

Hi bunnzy,You're absoluely right. I doubt I'd get one question right. Good point! Elphaba

I'm not sure I understand your point.I made it clear from the beginning that my post wasn't meant to be doctrinal at all, as the Journal of Discourses isn't doctrine. I also was very clear that it wasn't a scriptural interpretation; rather it was a historical one Elphaba

To get 88-89% you would have had to have made like five stupid mistakes. Please. Elphaba

Hello Isaac! Elphaba here. I have been told I can come here to LDSFORUMS and discuss these issues as long as it is respectful, so, I am going to try and do just that. First, by way of full disclosure, let me make a few statements before I start, which most of you already know, but some of you may not. I am an ex-Mormon; however, I am not an anti-Mormon. There are a number of people on this board who know me and will vouch for me if any of you have any concerns. Two, my passion, and knowledge, is with Mormon history. What you, Isaac, have discussed regarding JoD v. 7 is, admittedly, a scriptural interpretation. I don’t claim to have any expertise in that area. Third, the Journal of Discourses is not considered doctrine; therefore, I don’t know of anyone who believes Joseph will literally have to give consent to enter the Celestial Kingdom. Perhaps some do, I am just not aware of them. More on this later. Having said that, I thought you made a compelling scriptural argument for what is a fairly standard anti-Mormon claim. I had never looked at it that way before, and thought it was quite good. However, would you mind if offered a different interpretation based on historical context. It's not going to negate your interpretation, as they will be two separate animals. However, I do think I have some information that you, and others, will find quite interesting. At least, it was interesting to me! To do this properly I have to do a bit of background work, so please bear with me. Let me begin explaining my interpretation by describing the 1859 mindset of Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, and the many other Mormons who had been converted by Joseph‘s prophetic mantel, who had helped Joseph build his Church from nothing into a thriving group of dedicated Saints, who had gone on countless missions because Joseph had asked them to, who had secretly and with hardship entered into polygamy as Joseph explained it was commanded by God, and who had suffered horrific persecutions by Joseph’s side, one of them even being terribly wounded during Joseph’s cold-blooded murder. Obviously these are only a few of many examples of extraordinary fellowship, love and commitment to Joseph, his Church and their God. These men, and countless other men and women, including some of Joseph’s wives who had loved him deeply, were still alive when Brigham gave this sermon. For all we know they may have been in the very seats Brigham was perched above. I could give many other examples, but what I’m trying to do is describe how alive Joseph still was to Brigham, Woodruff, Taylor and many of the Saints in Zion. As Brigham says in this very sermon, “Joseph Smith . . . , and is now engaged behind the veil in the great work of the last days.” Of course, they still mourned Joseph’s presence, but have no doubt, they believed he was very much alive and waiting to welcome them into the Celestial Kingdom. To Brigham he seemed very near, especially at his deathbed where his last whispers were “Joseph, Joseph, Joseph.“ So now you have a sense of how Joseph’s fellow friends and Saints still loved him, but there’s one more ingredient I need to add, and that is vengeance. Their relationships with Joseph had made their lives marvelous, but it had also made their lives tragic, and their memories were still full of terrors: wars with their neighbors, being strapped to trees and whipped to death, being burned out of their homes with little children in the middle of shocking cold winters, a little boy at Haun’s Mill, begging for his life, shot by a man laughing, “Where there’s nits, there’s lice.’ Unspeakable, inhuman acts of horror. All of these persecutions, though not always caused by “religious intolerance” as claimed by Church officials, but nevertheless despicable, were still very much an agonizing memory, and the anger for the mobs, as well as the government, was still very fresh. In fact, it had only been two years since the Utah/Mormon War had occurred. Though there had been no bloodshed, the tensions, and the Saints unbearable fear of “here we go again,” kept those former persecutions fresh in their minds. Additionally, as many of you may know, and I won’t go into detail, in 1859 the temple ordinances contained oaths of vengeance. So, if you will, I’d like you to sit with all of this for a few minutes. Imagine yourself in Utah in 1859. It’s only been two years since the Utah/Mormon war. There’s tension between the Mormons and the growing gentile population. The past, and soon to be persecutions, are a wound that won’t be healed for another forty to fifty years. And Joseph. Dear Joseph. Perhaps he’s a beloved memory to some of the congregation. For sure he is to Brigham, as, in his loud, gruff voice, he continues his sermon: “Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the veil in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgiving from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them—something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them—namely, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.” Can you believe what you just heard? That was Brigham Young! The Lion of the Lord! I have chills! Can you see, now, taken in historical context, that Brigham is talking literally. Not only is he literally saying Joseph is alive, behind the veil and holding the keys of this last dispensation. He is also saying Joseph is essentially going to have his vengeance on all of the people who persecuted his Church! Time after time after time these murderers got away with their horrific deeds, and even the government would do nothing about it. But now, Joseph! Joseph! has the final say. If these people want into the Celestial Kingdom, Joseph, and only Joseph, can let them in. It’s the perfect revenge. The psychology of it is so incredibly satisfying. And for those who will be shocked, humiliated and horrified that Joseph was the prophet he claimed to be, it’s even worse: “From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are—I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation—the keys to rule in the spirit-world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit-world. He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim—"Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!" But it is true. Brigham was a crusty orator. I can just picture him, believing in a very real way that he’s having the last laugh on all of the mobbers and persecutors, “Oh, that is very disagreeable! (snotty bar thug voice) “It is preposterous! (snooty professorial voice) “We cannot bear the thought!” (arrogant store clerk, caught cowering) Brigham goes on, and to me, his anger seems to have seeped out of him. I have always found this paragraph very telling. I can’t be sure, because I don’t think Brigham was the “sensitive” type, but I find incredible beauty in this paragraph. Brigham is talking about Joseph like a man talks about his dearest love, and their mission of love for all of mankind. What a transition--”You’ll humble yourself to Joseph,” to “Joseph loves you so much he will never cease until the last ones of the children of men are saved . . . “ : “I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy, perhaps, the presence of angels or the spirits of good men, if they cannot endure the presence of the Father and the Son; and he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.” I don’t know. Perhaps Brigham’s still being crusty. But what he’s saying is that Joseph is not gone, and Joseph is not done. And Brigham realizes what an incredible gift that is to the world. Very powerful. So, Isaac, what do you think of my analysis? I don’t expect you to agree with me, and that’s okay. I just love the Journal of Discourses and looking at Brigham’s sermons in their historical context. I really enjoyed this one. I’d read a bit about it years ago and had already formulated my basic beliefs, but I’d never written them down before, and it was really a pleasure! So, thank you for the opportunity (even though you didn’t know you gave me one.) Elphaba

Well, I can't tell you. Because SOMEONE might take the test, so I can't give it away. Hint! Hint! Elphaba

I found a study, conducted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), that claims "that some of the most expensive universities, with the highest paid residents, are among the worst-performing in the country regarding the teaching of America’s history and institutions to their undergraduate students. These universities, which also receive some of the largest government subsidies, include the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell, Yale, Princeton, and Duke." ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Now, I have no idea if the ISI is a credible organization or not. But the real reason I wanted to post it's information is this entertaining multiple-choice-question American Civics Quiz it offers on its website. You can take it to determine how fluent you are in America's history and its institutions. Frankly, when it came to the history questions, it was a smackdown for me. Plato, no problem. I tell you, I was flyin', and was I ready to gloat! Then there started to appear, here and there, an economics question. I thought my guesses sounded fairly reasonable. Then suddenly, they were all economics questions. So out of 60 questions, I missed nine because they were economics questions. Yikes! I still ended up with an 80 percent, but please, I scored all of the other questions correctly, probably because they were mostly history questions! I think that deserves a twenty-point bonus, don‘t you? Oh shoot. I forgot. Sigh . . . Not many of you know me well, so let me explain. I am a feminist, have been for thirty years, and am proud of it. Having said, that, (sigh), when you read the following, (I can't do this), especially those who DO know me, (this is THE hardest thing I've ever done) please try to keep your laughter down to normal decibal limits (that means YOU Iggy!). And also, please be kind. One of the questions asked: "What year did women get the right to vote?" Well. Oh heck. I'll just say it. I missed it! IGGY! I hear you laughing! I said BE KIND! So, I guess I didn’t get every history question right. Never mind about the bonus. Here is the Civics Quiz. Let us know how you did! If you’re still interested, here is some more information from the site, plus the link: Prestige Doesn’t Buy Knowledge In contrast to the performance of students from high profile, elite schools, smaller regional institutions such as Concordia University in Nebraska and Marian College in Wisconsin scored among the highest for civic-knowledge gained (based on the differential between average scores of seniors and freshmen). Their presidents earn less than $167,000 a year. The top college for teaching America’s history and founding principles is a public, liberal arts college, Eastern Connecticut State University—reaffirming that prestige doesn’t buy knowledge. At the bottom of the civic-knowledge gain rankings are Cornell, Yale, Duke and Princeton—four prestigious colleges that cost more than $30,000 per year. Their presidents earn at least $500,000 a year. Rhodes College (Memphis, Tennessee), whose student scores topped the rankings last year, ranks first again among the 18 colleges included in both the 2005 and 2006 studies. Prestige Doesn't Buy Knowledge/ISI Report Elphaba, who really does know when women got the right to vote!

I've talked with Yediyd, and I hate to say it, but she is really put-off with the things that happened at LDSTALK, and is, at the very least, taking a break from the boards for a while. She says she's quitting them completely, but I'm hoping that's not true. It did get very ugly over there, and she wrote a post in the "Elphaba Needs Your Sincere Feedback" at LSDTALK thread that REALLY shows how she feels right now. If you like, I will e-mail her and tell her you miss her and would like her to come back. I miss her every day. I tried very hard to convince her not to leave; at the same time, I could tell it was depressing her, and she, at the least, really needed a break. Elphaba

That was hysterical!! Here is the buffest baby in town! Elphaba