Or pretty close.]]>
In the spritiual sense, the “first anointing” is actually receiving the Holy Ghost. Not the gift of the Holy Ghost, not just the influence of, but actually receiving him, as in a visitation, as when he “falls upon” someone.
In this sense the “second anointing” is then a personal visit from the Savior. The phrase “second anointing” is congruent to “the second Comforter” of which Joseph Smith taught. He explained that “the second Comforter” is the Savior.
We generally associate a personal visit from the Savior with “having one’s calling and election made sure” but the Savior could visit someone without making his/her calling and election sure, as happened in the scriptures and in the early history of the modern church.
I have no references handy to back it up, but from what I’ve heard at talks and firesides is that when the Lord wants to visit with someone, he does so at a temple. How an appointment is made or arranged, I don’t know.
I remember a fireside talk given by someone in our stake who is a long-time pillar of the church, and has been a long-time temple worker. In part of his talk, he spoke of both the temple, and Christ as the second Comforter. He urged the audience to so live as to be worthy of a visit from the Savior and have one’s calling and election made sure. As he spoke of Christ as the second Comforter, the skin of his face started to glow and shine. I got the impression he not only knew what he was talking about, but that he was speaking from experience.]]>
Again, as a rule of thumb, I think you can find fault or “speak evil” with a leader or teacher as long as it is true and damaging. For example, I had an EQ Teacher who would never theach from the book and end every single lesson with why we should become socialists. I mean every lession. While I think these type of discussions are valid, I don’t think a period given to Church instruction is a time to start a plea for political persusion ( I cringed whever Clinton was brought up in Church too back in the day, by the way). And I told the EQ leader leader so. Apparently others felt that way because he was removed about a month later.]]>
Another stone that creeps into this wall between us and heaven is evil speaking. Have you ever come home from a sacrament meeting, priesthood meeting, or Relief Society meeting and said, “Boy, what a dumb lesson,” or “Boy, why did the bishop do that tonight; wasn’t he thinking?” or “Boy, I wish they would get a better teacher for us; she’s a lemon,” and on and on. I believe that every time we speak evil of anyone who is a servant in the kingdom–and I’m not just talking about the prophets–we are sowing the seeds of apostasy. We talk about speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed, but I believe that anointed applies to all who are working in the kingdom. I believe that you can’t speak evil of a bishop, a counselor, or a teacher without putting a stone in your path that might keep the messages of heaven from reaching you. So I would suggest that we look for elevating things to say about people and not for the degrading things, no matter who we are talking about.]]>
But is this necessarily what evil speaking against God’s anointed means? I still think it pertains to the prophet – and the mouth pieces of the Lord (i.e. apostles), but I don’t think it really has to do with the second anointing per se. I’m interested to read J.’s post about it.]]>
That is an odd conclusion to jump to. Why would it seem that way to you?]]>
Although David was a King he never did obtain the spirit & power of Elijah & the fulness of the Priesthood, & the priesthood that he received & the throne & kingdom of David is to be taken from him & given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his linage (WoJS pg. 331)
It would seem that even though he didn’t recieve the “fullness of the priesthood” he did have some priesthood or another.]]>