- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Doctrinal question – can any of you explain LDS doctrine of why a stake president or bishop (in the case of women or non-melchizedek priesthood holder) has power to void a temple sealing through excommunication? Is this power to void eternal ordinances explicitly given to a stake president or bishop in the scriptures or when they are ordained? I’m not trying to question this aspect authority, rather I want to understand where it comes from. The reason I’m asking is: temple sealers are given special authority from the temple president to perform sealings. My understanding is that the sealing power / authority is taken very seriously and that relatively few temple workers have that ability. The scriptures talk about the sealing power being able to bind things in earth and in heaven and are treated almost with a sense of awe. My unschooled brain might conclude that only someone with sealing power could void a sealing.
My understanding is that only the First Presidency can actually void a sealing, and of course they can bestow that authority on a specific individual for a specific case. In the case of excommunication, I’m not actually sure the ordinance is actually “voided” but rather “put on hold.” I do know that when a person is rebaptized afer excommunication that there is not a new priesthood ordination or re-endowment but the blessings are restored. If he was a high priest before being excommunicated, he is still a high priest after having blessings restored. Likewise, the sealing is still in effect but is on hold. This is actually what leads me to believe there is an opportunity for repentence after this life. There would be no point in simply putting these things on hold if the person was not going to get rebaptized in this life. DarkJedi, that seems to be how the church views it, but it doesn’t resonate with me from a scriptural / doctrinal point of view. It sort of seems like a local magistrate putting on hold a verdict of a higher court. SP/Bishop handbook page 21 says after someone is sealed in a temple and is excommunicated or has their name removed, then temple blessings are “revoked” (that’s the work used in the handbook). It also says sealing blessings of innocent spouse or children are not affected. Whether or not revoke means “temporary”, I’m looking to figure out in my own mind how a Bishop can unseal a sealing.
Edited by Roadrunner for clarification…
Technically, the sealing is not revoked, since it doesn’t have to be redone if the person is re-baptized. Maybe “deactivated” would be a decent description. Frankly, our theology is WAY too complex to be neat and tidy in real life situations like this. To me, it fits exactly into “policy” – and the oft-repeated idea that God will work it all out in the end. It’s also a great example of why I view all of these things symbolically and not literally. The messiest messiness happens within a literal view.
Thanks – yes, policy is probably a better framework to view this in. I have a tendency to try to make things fit literally. That being said, removing temple blessings seems almost violent (breaking up eternal families) and I’m glad that as a whole it seems to be done more sparingly than in the past. Roadrunner, as a fwiw, I know of a woman whose son was excommunicated and then died before any real chance to be re-baptized. Her husband had died previously. She was in good enough health to attend the temple, but she had a condition that made it impossible for her to kneel at the altar. She asked if her son could be sealed to her and her husband – with all three people being represented by someone else, even though she would be in the sealing room. It had to be approved in SLC, but it was approved. So, a living mother, a dead father and an excommunicated son were sealed.
I share that simply to illustrate that, at the core, our theology is expansive enough to do what I believe the intent was in the first place: provide a physical, symbolic opportunity for the living to connect their hearts to the dead and, when it comes right down to it, place the final decision in the hands of a loving, knowing, patient God who will “do the right thing” in the end. I really don’t care at all if others don’t see it that same way, since our policies now are starting to reflect that view, imo. We are moving away from the exclusivity of our past (which I understand, from the standpoint of an emerging organization) as we mature, and I am grateful for that.
Collectively, historically, the LDS Church is still a teenager or very young adult. It was born as a child (in messiness, blood and tears), not a fully-functioning, reasoning adult. It’s easy to forget that simple fact.
Sorry I didn’t get back to this sooner, Roadrunner. I’ve had a busy few days. I agree with what Ray says and I think that’s what “hope” is all about. Revoked is an interesting word to use in the handbook. It does not say the bishop/SP revokes the blessings, however, it just says they’re revoked. As Ray points out, I think that’s much more of an administrative/policy thing as opposed to anything else. There is a little logic domino chain there – if a person is excommunicated than how can he/she have any blessings of the church (like temple blessings), yet temple blessings are eternal. The priesthood is the same way – once one holds the MP, one always holds it. In the case of excommunication the right to use it is revoked, however. All of that is evident in that blessings are “restored” following rebaptism – there is no reordination or new endowment or sealing.
That sort of brings up the question of why there is a rebaptism. I encountered a guy as a missionary who had been excommunicated but his family (wife/children) were active. Baptism was exactly his sticking point. I’m not sure he was worthy of rebaptism anyway (although he seemed to be and we weren’t allowed to discuss it with him officially), but he said he wouldn’t be anyway, using the “one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5) scripture as evidence he didn’t need to be. Again, I think it’s more policy related, and certainly symbolic.
DarkJedi wrote:I agree with what Ray says and I think that’s what “hope” is all about.
Like.
DarkJedi wrote:
There is a little logic domino chain there – if a person is excommunicated than how can he/she have any blessings of the church (like temple blessings), yet temple blessings are eternal. The priesthood is the same way – once one holds the MP, one always holds it.
DJ, thanks! Exactly, this is what got me thinking. We teach this is all eternal, and yet it seemingly can be revoked, sometimes easily revoked. It occurred to me maybe we’re diluting our own message and doctrine. But as you and Ray said, if it’s policy and not necessarily reflective of a larger truth and so is not as big a question for me. Ahem – as long as you or your spouse aren’t being revoked…
The way I like to look at it is everything we do in the church (physical actions, ordinances, etc.) is either symbolic or representative of our belief of what God would want to do or have us do. Just as a blessing of healing, while supposed to contain the very power of God, is dependent on the will of God — all the other actions of mortality must rest on the will of God. If there is an excommunication or anything else that is not the will of God He will override — no worries. Man ultimately can not get in the way where he is not supposed to. …from the eternal perspective at least. In mortality men get in the way daily where they shouldn’t.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.