Ep 480 – Seven Deadly Heresies: The Smackdown, Part 3

Smackdown

Posted April 29th, 2018

Have you ever thought that getting married/sealed in the temple guarantees your salvation?  WRONG!  What about the thought that baptisms for the dead give sinners a second chance at redemption?  WRONG AGAIN!  Don’t get complacent!  Don’t start thinking you are doing just fine!!  Don’t ever ever ever ever think that you don’t need the CHURCH or the BIG AND IMPORTANT leaders (ever)!  Listen in as Glenn, John, Randy, Bob, and special guest Mike Tannehill smack down the 3rd and 4th most deadly of heresies as outlined with absolute certainty by an infallible apostle of Jesus Christ.  (Irony?  Hyperbole? Facetiousness?  Where???)

Bob

Glenn

John

Randy

  • Tierza Rose Askren

    That first heresy discussed today is connected with the things Joseph Smith told some of his wives – that by being sealed to him they would save their entire families. The sealing power originally had a conception as the connections between Joseph and others and it was a power that could bring people into the celestial kingdom even if they fell short individually.

    Consider this quote: Elder Orson F. Whitney (1855–1906) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1929: “The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.”3

    The church itself has never fully embraced this idea and has worked to fit it into the belief that we rise and fall on our own – but if it is a heresy, it comes from things Joseph Smith said and is definitely a reasonable interpretation of doctrine. See this Ensign article: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/09/hope-for-parents-of-wayward-children?lang=eng

  • Jesse Onland

    On blood donation bans: I’m Canadian and so I don’t necessarily know the details of the situation elsewhere in the world, but what happened here is that about 2000 people contracted HIV from blood transfusions during the AIDS crisis. In response, the federal government established a single agency responsible for managing the supply of blood, called Canadian Blood Services. At that time, men who have had sex with men since 1977 were banned from donating blood, as were people who had recently traveled to countries with outbreaks of bloodborne diseases. Remember that at this time, it was not possible to test blood for HIV. In the years since HIV testing of all blood donations was implemented, the ban was relaxed to exclude only men who have had sex with men within the last five years, and then again to one year. This is in line with the policy of most blood donation agencies around the world. Some advocates have argued that the ban should be abolished entirely, as there is no longer a significant risk of HIV-infected blood making it through the system. These advocates often characterize the remaining one-year ban as homophobic.

    On STD rates: One must be clear what exactly they mean here, since, e.g., the majority of all humans have the herpes simplex 1 virus, which can be transmitted sexually. It is fair to say that men who have sex with men are most at risk of contracting HIV, since about 70% of new infections occur that way. However, race, socioeconomic factors, and substance addiction are also strong risk factors, at least when it comes to HIV.

  • Jason Jordan Smith

    For what it’s worth, we really don’t know what happened to the Neanderthals (other than them just dying). “We killed them off” is as much supported as them dying off by attrition.

  • Leopoldo

    Do we know when the substantial changes were made to this talk and by whom? A Sunstone article shows they were in place by at least 1985 (https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/047-08-13.pdf) and Spencer W. Kimball’s biography indicates that McConkie himself made the changes after being called out for inappropriately dictating church doctrine. Any insights? In some ways it doesn’t matter who made the changes, but it would help complete the story. Love the podcast, as always!

  • Larry

    I’m surprised no one seems to have heard the doctrine that once you are sealed, you have “made it.” This has come up several times in gospel doctrine and probably seminary over the years in my church experience. I’m even more surprised, however, that Mike did not quote the relevant scripture: D&C 132: 19-20. To paraphrase, if a man and woman enter the new and everlasting covenant and it is sealed by the holy spirit of promise, and if they do not shed innocent blood, they shall be exalted. The key concept is being sealed by the holy spirit of promise. To Joseph Smith this meant the second anointing, followed by a personal visitation by Jesus. Everyone was supposed to get this. The second anointing was seen as the final and completely necessary ordinance, just as baptism, etc., are all necessary. Those who were sealed in the Nauvoo temple were also giving the second anointing. In point of fact, the second anointing is the sealing, and the wedding ceremony is just the preparation for that.

    Joseph Smith, as in so many other things, was liberal in doling out sealings. At one point he sealed up an entire congregation to eternal life. I don’t have it on me, but I’ll be Mike can give you the reference for that. Then, as years went by, second anointing (also called the fullness of the priesthood) began to be seen as an extra, special blessing, intended mainly for general authorities, but that was not its origin. In fact, the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple (also in Manti, and make-shift ones at St. George and Logan) was never designed for a special place that the prophet can speak personally with Jesus (I think Boyd Packer said this in his temple book), rather, it was the room that the second anointing was performed in. After the second anointing got re-purposed, so did the Holy of Holies.

    Incidentally, this really bothered me as an active member. If I was being denied the final, necessary ordinance, what was the point of any of the others?

    • I semi-responded to this in another comment. But I’d say that, as an active Mormon, the fact that the way Joseph did something isn’t the way it’s done exactly now is par for the course. I mean, anyone who takes two minutes to look at how the priesthood was setup with Joseph vs. how/what it is now… that could annoy you similarly.

      My excuse (at the time) for the rarity of this particular ordinance (i.e., Second Anointing) in the present day is that it was more for those early trailblazers or leaders who really only did this restoration thing day in and day out as their whole life here on the earth. For the rest of us schmucks with day jobs… well, we aren’t there yet nor are we expected to be, given our circumstances.

      But all this is a very different conversation than the one we had on the podcast. On the podcast, we were pointing out that a simple temple sealing is not a “you’ve made it” ordinance as Bruce R framed it. So there’s some convolution at play here when the basic sealing ordinance is being discussed as if gets you Second Anointing benefits. And that’s really not a thing in Mormonism.

  • John

    I couldn’t help but feel bad for Mike. You guys really lit into him this time especially near the end when you were challenging the idea that ordinances are necessary.

  • Oshman

    Again, on the “once you’re sealed you have made it” heresy, the origin is in the doctrine and covenants. I was hoping this would have been discussed.

    D&C 132:26 “…if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but…”

    • Other than being a grammatical nightmare, I’m not sure what this scripture is supposed to prove. This is akin to that one dude in the ward using Word of Wisdom scriptures to make a point about how he eats meat sparingly. That’s more an anomaly than it is anything really Mormon. The actual point is that whatever these scriptures say is often very different as compared to the what is practiced pragmatically (in both cases) by an overwhelming majority. That is to say, I’m sure the “eat meat sparingly because I’m Mormon” dude does exist as does the “I’ve been Mormon sealed, so I’ve already made it” dude.

      But those dudes (or dudettes) are really anomalies to the point of being straw men for Bruce R to setup so as to knock down. Great, got it, glad to clear that up. I was so confused by all the lack of guilt and shame that I otherwise wasn’t experiencing as a Mormon post sealing. Oh wait…

  • oldscoop

    While everyone else here seems caught up in meaningful stuff like heresies, I was having fingernails-on-chalkboard reactions every time McConkie used the word “believe”, which he pronounced “bleve”. Almost as annoying as Eyring constantly making mouth-smacking noises when opening his mouth. How come no one else gets irritated at the same shallow inconsequential stuff that I do? Y’all must have better OCD meds than me.

    • Larry

      Oh, Eyring’s lip smacking is DEFINITELY worse! Yikes! I couldn’t stand that even when I was active.