- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
When I hear the word “sealing”, I think of eternity. In Todd Compton’s book, he refers to “Fanny’s Kirtland sealing.” However, I’ve talked to both Mark Staker and Brian Hales, and they seem to believe that Fanny’s marriage to Joseph was a time only sealing. The Fanny-Joseph marriage likely occurred prior to the 1836 visit of Elijah to restore the sealing power, although Don Bradley makes a case that the marriage could have taken place in April 1836 following the vision. (It was discovered later that year by Emma.) Calling this a sealing seems problematic to me in light of D&C 132. If you’re not sealed in the next life, how can you call it a sealing? Marriage, yes. Sealing, no. Maybe it’s semantics? (I’m not ruling out adultery either, but for sake of discussing this theologically, I’m going to assume that it was either a sealing or a marriage.)
I am bothered by D&C 132’s reference to concubines–sex slaves as trophies of war, where God authorized David and Solomon’s “wives and concubines.” Concubines of David/Solomon were likely gentiles, and were political marriages to align political kingdoms. It seems awfully strange to say God authorized marriages (or time-only sealings?) to join a Jew-Gentile marriage. Modern LDS certainly wouldn’t let a gentile woman in a temple be sealed to a Mormon man (or vice-versa), and it seems HIGHLY unlikely that a gentile would have been allowed into the Temple of Solomon. (I guess some sealings in Joseph Smith’s day were performed outside the temple, and seemingly King David could have been sealed too, but still it seems odd to me.) I see nothing godly in these politically motivated marriages. Polygamy expert Anne Wilde said these were likely time-only marriages, and likely not an eternal sealing.
Anyway, I do understand that early Mormons practiced time-only sealings. In one weird case, Joseph was sealed to Parley Pratt’s 2nd wife, Mary Ann Frost. I guess Brian Hales claims Joseph never consummated this marriage with Mary Ann, and in fact Parley believed his consummation with Mary Ann (a time-only plural wife) was in fact like a levirate-like marriage where even though Moroni Pratt was Parley’s biological offspring, in the eternities Moroni was sealed as Joseph’s offspring. (Note DNA evidence proves Moroni was Parley’s son, not Joseph’s). This whole idea of a time-only sealing makes little theological sense to me, and seems entirely inconsistent theologically.
I gave up trying to figure it all out. I believe strongly that the concubine system in the OT was nothing but political and power-sexual. I certainly don’t think it was divinely decreed or sanctioned – or approved as a standard for later times. I believe, however, that Joseph believed in a restoration of ALL things – and that he was a proponent of the entire Bible (but not inerrancy or of every detail) – and that he wasn’t close to being a Puritan when it came to matters of sex – and that he didn’t mind including sexual ideas in his theology of eternity – etc.
As far as what will be the actual eternal situation(s), I also quit trying to figure it out a long time ago. I am totally happy with the idea of my wife and I being together forever, but I also am totally happy with the idea of there being no sex as we know it here on Earth. Frankly, the idea of continued sex and gestation and childbirth as eternal beings makes no sense whatsoever to me, emotionally or logically. I see eternal creation very differently than earlier people did (and so many modern people still do).
I’m fine with not knowing – and with believing outside the orthodox box.
I am also in the club of those who gave up trying to figure it out a long time ago. Joseph Smith or any other history were really not part of my own FC, so I never dwelt on the stuff. FWIW, I also do not believe Section 132 to be of God (or revelation or anything like it). That said, I was recently doing some research for something else and stumbled across the ancient Hebrew definition of adultery. Adultery (as in Ten Commandment and subsequent time) was only a man having sex with a married woman. A man cold have sex with unmarried women whether or not he was married. As a side note, an unmarried woman having sex devalued her as a bride to the extent she likely would not marry but likely ended up a concubine, hand maiden, or something else. Were she to marry and it be found out she was not a virgin the punishment was death.
So, if Joseph was aware of this (and he could have been) he may not have seen an “affair” with Fanny Alger or any other unmarried woman as adultery.
Also, could a “time only sealing” be what we might call a temple marriage for time only? Perhaps the modern verbiage is so such confusion does not exist.
Here are some links to the old Jewish definition of adultery if interested:
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/adultery/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/adultery/” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adultery-2http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adultery-2” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20and%20the%20law%20in%20ancient%20israel.htm ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20and%20the%20law%20in%20ancient%20israel.htm gospeltangents wrote:
This whole idea of a time-only sealing makes little theological sense to me, and seems entirely inconsistent theologically.
I agree. It seems self/contradictory.
Also LDS theology seems to strongly imply physical sexual relationships in the celestial kingdom. I don’t see the need for eternal and exclusive sealings if relationships are emotional in nature. Why would I need to be sealed to someone that I merely converse with or spend time with.
LookingHard wrote:
I gave up trying to figure it all out.
I’ll go a step further. I don’t think there is any point in trying to figure it out.For one, our knowledge of what was going on is very scant. There’s a lot of heresay (and heresy, for that matter) involved. Circumstantial evidence rules the domain. What that means in a practical sense is that we can never really know, so we instead, subconsciously, project our already existing assumptions onto the “facts” and we just confirm what we already thought.
Just as importantly, JS made stuff up as he went along. We was a constant tinkerer. If it suited him to make a pronouncement of some knew doctrine, he did so, and frequently he didn’t have the long-view in mind. So, when it comes to something that was so all-over-the-place like marriage doctrine, we can’t assume that there even was a grand scheme in his mind.
Finally, let me add this. I don’t accept D&C 132 as being from God, and I’m not even sure it was from JS (though we know he did produce a revelation about polygamy in Nauvoo). At best, polygamy was a terrible mistake made without thinking about consequences to the Church generally or to the people involved specifically. At worst, it was an abhorrent power and sex grab by a person in a position of dominance over an entire people who obeyed out of a belief that he acted for God. I only view polygamy as existing between those two markers. No analysis of doctrine, justifications, rules, order or administration is interesting enough for me to consider it in any other way.
It is puzzline going in both directions. Trying to figure out time-only sealings is hard to make sense of what exactly that is.
But…eternal sealings? Does it make any more sense? What do we really believe an eternal sealing look like? What do we believe happens in the Eternities that is different if we are sealed or not sealed?
Quote:I don’t think there is any point in trying to figure it out.
I know this is a winning technique for some, but it just doesn’t work for me. I may not be able to come to a satisfactory answer, and I may reject the “orthodox” response, but it just feels like giving up to me. Perhaps I enjoy cognitive dissonance more than most.
For me, I don’t want to feel uninformed. I don’t want to be blindsided by “did you know such and such?”
I’d rather say, “Yes I knew such and such.” I may rationalize that (1) It is wrong. Here’s why. (2) It is correct. Here’s why. (3) I’m not sure what to think about it, but yes I know about it.
Some people put things on the shelf, which is fine for some, but it’s not a good solution for me.
gospeltangents wrote:
Quote:I don’t think there is any point in trying to figure it out.
I know this is a winning technique for some, but it just doesn’t work for me. I may not be able to come to a satisfactory answer, and I may reject the “orthodox” response, but it just feels like giving up to me. Perhaps I enjoy cognitive dissonance more than most.
There are ways of looking at it other than someone giving up.
Say you want to take your dog for a walk. It probably doesn’t matter whether it’s 33 degrees (F) outside or 31 degrees (F) outside, you’re going to grab a jacket on the way out the door because it’s cold.
Say someone else decides to take their dog for a walk but they live in a neighborhood with poor drainage, water pools up on all the neighborhood sidewalks. It might matter whether it’s 33 degrees (F) outside or 31 degrees (F) because that person may have to be wary of icy patches.
Was it a “sealing” or a “time only sealing?” First I’d have to consider whether labeling the event as a “sealing” or a “time only sealing” would change how I viewed the event. For some people it will matter, for others it won’t.
Was Fanny’s marriage a “sealing” or “time only sealing?” Doesn’t matter, either way I’m grabbing a jacket on my way out.
gospeltangents wrote:
Quote:I don’t think there is any point in trying to figure it out.
I know this is a winning technique for some, but it just doesn’t work for me. I may not be able to come to a satisfactory answer, and I may reject the “orthodox” response, but it just feels like giving up to me. Perhaps I enjoy cognitive dissonance more than most.
For me, I don’t want to feel uninformed. I don’t want to be blindsided by “did you know such and such?”
I’d rather say, “Yes I knew such and such.” I may rationalize that (1) It is wrong. Here’s why. (2) It is correct. Here’s why. (3) I’m not sure what to think about it, but yes I know about it.
Some people put things on the shelf, which is fine for some, but it’s not a good solution for me.
I don’t think this is an example of putting stuff on a shelf. I think it’s an admission that we don’t know or understand all things – and that’s actually part of our theology.
It could also be saying that you’ve put all the effort into it that you feel the question justifies. It could also mean that you’re satisfied with your level of confidence in whatever answer you think is most likely. Both of these statements describe what I think. There’s no shelf, because I’m not especially bothered by the contradictions. I expect blatant contradictions from Joseph because I don’t think he was necessarily dealing in the literal truth, either when he reached for the divine or justified his extramarital relationships. I’m confident enough in that answer to have stopped digging, though I always appreciate more knowledge on the subject when learning it doesn’t demand much effort.
This answer rules out seriously developing the theology, which, because it relies on reason, demands consistency. Sure, we can resolve a lot of inconsistencies by introducing new concepts (e.g. time-only sealings) to deal with aberrant facts. But the more we do that, the more complicated and less useful the theology becomes. (Does the concept of a time-only sealing have any use besides justifying Joseph’s actions?) We start asking questions like “Wait, why are we doing this again?”
Now that I don’t feel like it’s immoral to ask questions like that, I start asking them a lot earlier.
I like nibbler’s weather analogy…because that highlights how some things are subjective…and they legitimately do matter to some. I find value in thinking through some things…even if “orthodox” answers don’t seem to work anymore for me…or even if I think there is always an element of agnosticism about things because I believe there is a veil of understanding over our minds to keep us from ever knowing it fully.
There is still value in getting as close to something as possible…or exercising the skills to try to approach it, even if we won’t ever know entirely.
Maybe it is like other things with education. My kids might get a certain degree in college that may or may not apply to their career…but education seems to always help the individual learn things that help them approach any subject or any career…so therefore…the pursuit of knowledge is helpful, even if we don’t ever figure out the answers.
gospeltangents wrote:
I’d rather say, “Yes I knew such and such.” I may rationalize that (1) It is wrong. Here’s why. (2) It is correct. Here’s why. (3) I’m not sure what to think about it, but yes I know about it.Some people put things on the shelf, which is fine for some, but it’s not a good solution for me.
I agree with this. I think these approaches help keep a shelf from stacking up until they break, because they are examined frequently.I think the key for me is accepting that it is OK for me to just accept “I don’t know” or “I don’t believe that” …and not try to get stuck on the “I should believe it like others or else I’m parking it and don’t care”. I think it is good to work through it and challenge assumptions.
Reuben wrote:
It could also be saying that you’ve put all the effort into it that you feel the question justifies. It could also mean that you’re satisfied with your level of confidence in whatever answer you think is most likely.
Good point. So…isn’t it valuable then for someone to ask you why you feel justified? Why you’re satisfied? And share those thoughts with each other so we check our thinking, or learn from others?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.