- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Sam, the Python reference was to my own comment. This is getting murkier and murkier . . . :crazy: Oh, and with reference to the existence or lack of heavenly porcelain thrones, one is mentioned obliquely in our hymn book. If you don’t believe me, check out this link:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x9Eq7N0pQpc/TPkgUa7zLuI/AAAAAAAAFvA/_Qk2igwpx_Y/s1600/Scan.jpeg OK, I’ll go back to the OP since I’m late to the game. You guys went a little crazy after page 2! Just to warn ya’ll I
aman “extreme feminist.” 
The sealing of children was not really an original part of the whole sealing ordinance. It was assumed that mothers (and fathers) would have their children in the hereafter. Joseph started “sealing” people together before he died. He had used some terms that we now see as being promised only to temple ordinanced people as early as the 1830’s. So, there was an evelotion of the sealing concept as he went.
In the early days of sealing it was a marriage ordinance or an adoption ordinance. Children were not involved in sealings until the 1880’s. I believe it was WW who discontinued the adoption sealings (where members were sealed to Joseph or Brigham) and began the sealing of children to their parents. Before that they didn’t have the concept of BIC, at least that is what the records tell me.
Today we still have sexism and remnants of polygamy in our sealing ceremony. A man can be sealed to multiple women, even if they are all living, as long as permission is asked…although I have heard of this not working out so well sometimes (note, they are legally divorced from all but one wife). If a woman is widowed young she would have to petition to have her first sealing cancelled in order to have the next one performed. This is obviously a VERY difficult thing to ask of a woman and can be extremely offensive and emotional for the dead husbands family. Especially one who believes that these ordinances are necessary for the CK.
If she is sealed to the first husband then according to the old reasoning (I have not heard anything that contradicts this) all the children born to her second husband are sealed to the dead husband. This is where the “it’ll all be sorted out by God” answer comes in handy. When everyone is dead all the sealings can be done by proxy for all children to their biological father/mother unit.
This can be very devestating to the new husband and any children born into that union, as well. If they are not sealed together they are left wondering what is going to happen to them after they die. The husband who was always taught to get married in the temple would be left with the choice of picking a different bride or “settling” for a non-temple wedding.
Despite the “God will work it out” answer there are many members who DO worry about this stuff. I know from talking to some of my close friends.
Obviously it isn’t an exact science and there may well be variations and exceptions to what I have seen and read.
Thanks for dragging us back on track Just Me. There are so many holes in the Mormon theology of temples and sealings that it makes my head spin. I agree with what you said, and I know that many members are very concerned about their salvation and their family salvation in regards to temples.
I personally no longer believe in it, or in the magical power the church claims to have in the temple to determine our salvation or our families. It is symbolic to me in every sense of the word, and I believe it helps some people worship and grow closer to god and their spouse. Other than that, I just don’t see it being required or necessary, so I have chosen to not dwell on it or worry about it anymore.
Yup. 
It sounds like “seal everyone to everybody and the Lord can figure it out later” is what is going on. So, really, is there anything legit about the temple and the ordinances there? If everything is going to have to be sorted out there then why waste the time doing it here (wrong)? In the class they also talked about how the temple work for someone will probably be done multiple times based on someone adding a period to the middle initial or misspelling the name. It just seems that the constant push to get all this temple work done is a little redundant.
cwald wrote:It is symbolic to me in every sense of the word, and I believe it helps some people worship and grow closer to god and their spouse. Other than that, I just don’t see it being required or necessary …
This.
Butters wrote:So, really, is there anything legit about the temple and the ordinances there?
That is up to you. They are symbolic.
Quote:If everything is going to have to be sorted out there then why waste the time doing it here (wrong)? In the class they also talked about how the temple work for someone will probably be done multiple times based on someone adding a period to the middle initial or misspelling the name. It just seems that the constant push to get all this temple work done is a little redundant.
Some people find solace and meaning in the redundancy of the temple rituals. I do not believe it is for the dead people whose names are used…and I don’t think anyone here would really argue that. It is all about the living person going through the rituals. Names are recycled. There are billions of dead people whose names we will never know. So, even though we are told we are doing service for the dead it is really all about us.
I no longer find personal meaning in the temple so I choose not to go or hold a recommend. However, lots of people do find meaning there and I don’t think that it could rightly be called a waste of their time.
I do still find meaning and fulfillment in doing family history research. I love learning about my ancestors and other church hisorical figures. It makes me feel connected to my heritage.
I’m sorry, I don’t know much about you. Are you taking Temple Prep right now to prepare to go to the temple in the near future? I need to look at your past posts…
🙂 Butters, fwiw, I really do believe deeply in the concepts and principles in the temple ceremonies– as symbolic, but having real meaning and power for those who can see them that way. I go less often than I would like, due to time and money constraints, but I love the time for the quite contemplation it provides. I know the “actions” without having to think about them, so I let my mind open while I’m there – and I’ve had some incredible insights and epiphanies by doing that. I think I’ve caught glimpses of things I can’t quite understand fully – but I’ve loved seeing the outlines a little better. Also, I’ve worked in many areas across the US where the temple concepts and principals are needed desperately – and much of “our” angst might be largely because we are able to realize the literal limitations of some common interpretations and, in seeing those limitations, forget how cosmologically expansive the concepts and principles still are. In my own humble opinion, recognizing the “interpretive limitations of literalism” actually makes the concepts and principles even more expansive and mind-blowing than taking them literally. It’s just hard to articulate exactly why to those who still are struggling within a literal mindset.
I’ll think about it for a bit and perhaps write something about it later. In a nutshell, however, seeing the ordinances of the temple as fully symbolic tears down all the walls and barriers and theoretical divides between heaven and earth, God and humanity – and it opens up the Atonement and grace to be truly universal. It’s not the temple ordinances themselves with which I get disillusioned or troubled; it’s what I view as the constriction in how they are viewed by too many members that causes the issue, imo.
Joseph taught that the temple was the great equalizer and grace-evidence of our theology – NOT the great divider and Rameumpton of our modern day. Too many members have turned it into what it never was intended to be, imo – and I don’t mean that to be addressed at the establishment of recommend worthiness standards. I have no problem with them, in theory, even if I do question the need for some of the ones we currently use. At root, I see the temple in the same light that I think Joseph saw it – as an expression of deep humility and the consciousness of God’s love and grace for ALL his children, not as a separator of those children. I like the answer Brian gave when somebody asked, “Is baptism really necessary?” “If you believe it is, it is.”
I want to piggy back on some of Just Me’s comments. I attended a Sons of Utah Pioneers presentation a few months ago. The speaker was BYU Professor Richard E Bennett. He is preparing a presentation for next year’s Mormon History Association meetings in St George, and gave us a “rough draft” of his presentation. He indicated that prior to 1890, there was no genealogy done in the church. Church members were not sealed to each other, but rather the Law of Adoption was in effect. Church members were sealed to prominent church members. It was believed that the more people sealed to you, the greater your exaltation in the next life. So, for example, John D Lee (born 1812), was sealed as a son of Brigham Young (born 1801). Church members were sealed to prominent church members to ensure their own exaltation (by being sealed to a prophet or apostle); simultaneously, these sealings would exalt the prophets and apostles in the next life.
The first ordinances for the dead were performed in the St George Temple (completed prior to the SL Temple). At the time the Manifesto was received in 1890, Wilford Woodruff had a vision (to go along with losing a Supreme Court case) that the temples would be taken away from the church. Bennett’s position is that temple work was more important than polygamy, resulting in the Manifesto.
The Utah Genealogical Society of Utah was started in 1894, and the Saints were encouraged to be sealed to deceased family members instead of members of prominent church leaders at this time. It was at this time that the Law of Adoption was essentially discontinued. (I think there was some general discomfort with the idea of having everyone sealed to prominent church members.)
John Dehlin interviewed a Master Mason and 5th generation Mormon (Greg Kearney was the name, I think), and he indicated that the temple ceremonies teach many truths symbolically. The best way to really understand the temple ceremony is through repetition, and Joseph Smith understood that. So, that is also part of the reason why we’re encouraged to go to the temple often–so that we can be taught these spiritual truths. I think that’s why we’re encouraged to go frequently today as well–so that the symbolic learning can take place.
As for BIC, I really don’t think that “ordinance” is necessary–it seems similar to infant baptisms, IMO. Kathryn Daynes wrote a book on Manti polygamy. Quoting from my post at
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/11/08/surrogate-parenthoodtypes-of-polygamist-marriages-daynes-part-3/ Quote:Marriage with delayed Rights– Daynes indicates that 12-year old Mary Dunn and 11-yr old Mosiah were sealed to each other just prior to leaving Nauvoo because leaders knew it would be a long time before they had access to a temple. Daynes quotes Mosiah’s autobiography on page 78, ‘that it was done “with the understanding that we were not to live together as husband and wife until we were 16 years of age.”‘ Daynes further indicates on page 79 that “Mosiah and Mary were never united after they arrived in Salt Lake City; at age eighteen, Mary married Martin Luther Ensign.“ This logic reminds me as similar to the logic applied by Catholics when they baptize infants. In this example, it seems that the sealing ordinance was considered so essential that they sealed these 2 kids together “just in case”. I think that’s why BIC is done–so that children can be sealed to someone. To me, the real important sealing ordinance is the husband-wife sealing. All the other sealings are really not necessary.
Great post, MH. :clap: mormonheretic wrote:To me, the real important sealing ordinance is the husband-wife sealing. All the other sealings are really not necessary.
With all that said, why do you think husband-wife sealings are necessary?
Heber13 wrote:Great post, MH.
:clap: mormonheretic wrote:To me, the real important sealing ordinance is the husband-wife sealing. All the other sealings are really not necessary.
With all that said, why do you think husband-wife sealings are necessary?
That was my question exactly.
MH can answer for himself, but I think the ideal needs to be articulated AND “embodied” – to be accepted “publicly” as an open statement of intent. There’s a degree of that in “’til death do us part” (since it articulates staying together until the end in many people’s eyes) – but I really want the ideal to be forever. Symbolizing that eternal commitment truly to start with a distinct “two” and become an inseperable “one” means a lot to me, and I think it should be “embodied” in an actual, physical, participatory ordinance / ceremony. Personal opinion time:
Is there anything magic or automatic in it? Absolutely not. When it comes down to it, will it make a bad marriage good or a decent marirage excellent? Absolutely not. Will it make two become one? Absolutely not. Will the lack thereof keep two who truly have become one through life from continuing as one after death? Absolutely not.
So, why bother?
Ideals should be taught and embodied in symbolic action as much as possible, imo – since that really does mean something to the vast majority of those involved.
Old-Timer wrote:
Ideals should be taught and embodied in symbolic action as much as possible, imo – since that really does mean something to the vast majority of those involved.
I tend to agree, Ray. I think the symbolism becomes more literal as we apply them. Having a vision and moving towards that vision can help us find the peace and happiness we desire, through our faith.Sorry I didn’t answer sooner. We were out of town with no internet access (which was probably good for me to be unplugged a bit.) Anyway, in answer to the question about whether a husband or wife needs to be sealed together, well, I guess that depends on how much Mormon theology you believe. If you believe in the 3 degrees of glory, then a person can get to the Celestial Kingdom without sealing, but won’t be able to achieve the highest level in the Celestial Kingdom. So, if the Celestial Kingdom is what you want and you don’t care if it’s not the top level, then no, it isn’t necessary. But if you want to get into the highest, then yes, you should be sealed. But if you reject the 3 degrees, then sealing doesn’t really matter much.
Now, there are lots of “what ifs” that makes this question not so cut and dried. As Ray said, getting sealed is not the end all–we have to live worthy of the sealing. I also like the idea that God is both male and female, rather than the male-only view that Christianity has portrayed in the centuries. This sealing power seems to level the playing field a bit, despite the patriarchal nature of religion. I wish Mormons would be more egalitarian in the views of a Heavenly Mother, and I think this sealing ordinance is in the right direction, even if it doesn’t seem to be carried out very well in practice. But of all the sealings that we can do, husband to wife seems much more important and relevant than child to parent. Child to parent doesn’t make much sense to me as eternally significant.
I like the scripture, “neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.” I think that the symbolism of needing each other to attain our highest glory is a pretty cool concept.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.