On Earth as it is in Heaven?

This whole business of sealing has led to a host of unanswerable questions other than “it will all be sorted out on the other side.” I am still sealed to my first wife and children but only 2 of the 4 kids speak to me. My current wife’s ex husband was excommunicated for adultery but if she were to cancel her sealing to him and he decided to come back to the church and had his blessings restored, my wife’s daughters would remain sealed to him and not sealed anymore to her. I decided to reconsider the source of the whole business with JS and the 132nd section and decided for myself that he was just trying to convince Emma that polygamy was ok and interpret it in that light.

I PERSONALLY just don’t put much merit into DC 132. Actually, I don’t put much merit in Temples or any of the D&C. I personally don’t see anything in it as “gospel”. There is some good in it – but I personally don’t regard it as the literally word of god or will of god. I think most of what we know about temples and sealings and such is symbolic and was created to help people feel better about life on this planet, and perhaps to boost their faith in Jesus. Nothing wrong with that, but I certainly don’t see anything “magical” about it. Just my opinion.

Thanks all, I appreciate the comments, they articulate quite well some of the thoughts I’ve had on the subject. Yeah, it’s very difficult to arrange and reconcile the ‘known’ in relation to the ‘unknown’, particularly when the ‘unknown’ is sketchy at best and irritatingly evasive. But I refuse to believe that all the good people I know that married other good people outside the temple won’t have whatever blessings or progression is available in the next life because of that. That’s just not a system I want to be a part of.

*sigh* I’m still trying to reconcile 30 years of black-and-white church teachings with my new-fangled cynicism. It’s a process…

I’ve been thinking about this topic quite a bit lately. I think the sealing between a man and a woman is a wonderful ordinance. But this whole business of sealing parents to children just makes no theological sense to me at all. My parents were sealed in the temple. I’ve been sealed to my wife in the temple. If the purpose of this life is to obtain exaltation, I’m not going to be hanging out in my parent’s exalted living room. The sealing to the man and the woman is what is important, not parents to children.

I read a book called “More Wives Than One” by Kathryn Daines. She discusses polygamy in Manti, Utah. She notes that there were some sealings done in Nauvoo to children who were too young to get married. If I remember correctly, a 12-year old boy was sealed to a 10 year old girl because the Saints knew they were moving west and wouldn’t have a temple to be sealed in. However, the “couple” was not actually married–they never consummated the marriage and continued to live with their families. The 2 ended up marrying other people and never had a “real” marriage with each other. They were sealed simply so that they could receive the sealing ordinance which they knew probably wouldn’t be available as they traveled west. Frankly, it reminded me of Catholics baptizing infants simply to avoid Hell if they died right away. This sort of sealing seems odd to me. While such sealings were rare, it indicates to me that the sealing between husband and wife is of supreme important, rather than parents to children.

I believe that this whole idea of being “born into the covenant” is a similar mindset. A young child “needs” to be sealed to someone, so until they become of age to be sealed to a spouse, they are “temporarily” sealed to a parent. The real sealing is between a man and a wife.

Additionally, I read “Great Basin Kingdom” by Leonard Arrington that discusses “adoptive sealings.” For example, John D Lee was sealed as a son to Brigham Young. If I remember correctly, many church members wanted to be sealed to Brigham and Joseph so that they would have a greater chance at exaltation. I believe it was in the 1880’s that church leaders became uncomfortable with this practice, and disallowed such sealings. Instead, they encouraged members to seek out their ancestors and create a welding link from the fathers to the children. So, it seems to me this “families are forever” saying can be traced back to this change from the 1880’s. I think the emphasis for baptism for the dead and endowments is really where the focus should be. Spouses should be sealed to each other, but from a theological perspective, sealing children to parents doesn’t make any practical sense to me. I believe it is done merely to seal a child to a parent in case the child isn’t sealed to a spouse due to early death or some other reason like that. Posthumous sealings by proxy only seem “necessary” if a child dies too young to obtain a spouse.

Now obviously, I’m not teaching official church doctrine here, but it is the only explanation that makes sense to me.

What MH said.

Cwald, I was…and unemployed for a good part of last year, so I got quite a bit of reading done.

I guess sometimes we should be “grateful” that we don’t have the time to do all the reading we want.

Cwald, I was…and unemployed for a good part of last year, so I got quite a bit of reading done.

I guess sometimes we should be “grateful” that we don’t have the time to do all the reading we want.

I’m afraid many people have plenty of reading time these days! 😥