What Does D&C 128:18 Mean

[james12]

I agree, it is definitely not the whole story. There is so much tied to salvation for the dead. 

[Just_A_Guy]

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What this is saying is that we don't "inherit all that the Father hath" through the principles of the gospel, Faith in Jesus Christ, nor directly through the Atonement.  It says that we inherit it though our earthly bloodlines.  While I see that some of our doctrines could be read that way, I'm not sure I am ready to accept that interpretation.  I'd have to have a lot more quotes, a lot more prayer, a lot more inspiration, and a lot more time to come around to that one.

But if correct, it would certainly answer the questions I had.

Hi Carbs -

I don't have a lot of time to answer and will be offline for several days; but to be brief:  Mainline Christians often suggest that our position on the grace/works spectrum and even our emohasis on ordinances generally, give short shrift to the salvific role of Jesus Himself--an assertion to which we would usually reply that Jesus, first and foremost, is what makes it all possible; and that the primacy of His grace does not nullify the roles of individual choice or priesthood authority in the Plan of Salvation.

[Guest]

There is a third question that I mentioned in the OP, but I apparently dropped.

Quote

...that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. 

What is this about.  I somehow read from this that we are not welding dispensations  through sealing families throughout time, generation upon generation.  I get the impression that the dispensations are welded together through the primary prophets of each dispensation -- hence Elijah had to give keys to Joseph Smith.  This is one reason Elijah had to do it instead of having the Lord simply give everything that Joseph needed.  Joseph and Elijah had to meet and do something that we're not aware of.

[mordorbund]

I think the ordinances themselves weld the dispensations. The sealing ceremony welds the Elias' keys with Elijah's keys. Baptism welds John's keys (of the Aaronic Priesthood) with Peter's keys (of the kingdom).

Joseph and Elijah had to meet and do something that we ARE aware of. He had to give him the keys. Christ holds all keys. Adam under him. And so on down to Peter and John the Baptist.

Quote

The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam’s authority (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pg 157).

Adam has apparently appointed Elijah to have stewardship over the sealing keys. Jesus promised to Peter the keys of the kingdom. In the next chapter Peter is meeting with Elijah and Moses (presumably to receive their respective keys). In 1829 Peter, James, and John give to Joseph Smith the keys of the kingdom (the special dispensation they hold) but they do not give the keys of the gathering of Israel or the full sealing keys although they already received these keys. The Lord could give Joseph these keys, but it would be completely incongruous with what we know about the order of the priesthood.

[FogCity]

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 3:19 PM, Eowyn said:

This is something that has been on my mind a lot. The connecting teaching I've been thinking about, though, is that as they cannot be saved without us, we can't be saved without them. I have some thoughts that I've had a hard time formulating in a way that makes sense.. Here's the closest I can come: Elder Holland has said that we do not teach or speak of angels enough. What I have been reading about a lot, and even experiencing (I believe), is that we are ministered to by angels, and it is my belief that there's a good chance those angels are often our ancestors. I have wondered lately if perhaps, because our God is a god of order, there is a necessary priesthood stewardship that has to be there before they are able to aid us. One way to provide that stewardship, and the one that makes most sense to me, is being linked to them through the sealing power. So as we find our ancestors, do their temple work, and link them to us, they are granted a priesthood stewardship over us (as parents/grandparents could have) and are granted more power? access? permission? to aid us from the other side. 

I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else. It's something that's just been gelling in my mind recently. 

I watched the Cokeville Miracle movie for the first time last weekend.  A cheezy movie, but I liked the message.  To summarize, a crazed individual with a homemade bomb took a small Wyoming elementary school hostage.  A couple hours into the ordeal, the explosive detonates.  Several elementary school children claimed that angels visited them just minutes before the explosion and told them to move away from the center of the room and the explosive device.  Many also claimed that they watched angels direct the explosion upwards instead of outward.  Experts claim that there should have been dozens of casualitites and injuries, none of the 130+ children held hostage died. 

In the movie several children identified pictures of deceased relatives as their protectors that day. I thought that was interesting.

[LeSellers]

14 minutes ago, FogCity said:

I watched the Cokeville Miracle movie for the first time last weekend.  A cheezy movie, but I liked the message.  To summarize, a crazed individual with a homemade bomb took a small Wyoming elementary school hostage.  A couple hours into the ordeal, the explosive detonates.  Several elementary school children claimed that angels visited them just minutes before the explosion and told them to move away from the center of the room and the explosive device.  Many also claimed that they watched angels direct the explosion upwards instead of outward.  Experts claim that there should have been dozens of casualitites and injuries, none of the 130+ children held hostage died. 

In the movie several children identified pictures of deceased relatives as their protectors that day. I thought that was interesting.

This was based on (and, as best I can tell, reliably) a real event.

Quote

76 of the hostages suffered injuries, mostly flesh burns and other injuries from the exploding bomb. Several children reported seeing angels in the classroom that day, including many children who claimed to have seen a "beautiful lady" or person all in white who told them to go near the window. Other children reported seeing an angel over each child's head. All of the children who saw angels were shown several photos to identify the beings. Every child responded to the photos of an ancestor saying, "That's her/him!" Investigators discovered that only two of the bomb's five blasting caps went off, along with the gasoline leaking preventing a larger explosion. And if it had worked properly, the bomb would have blown off the side of the building and many more would have been injured or killed.

Lehi

Edited July 27, 2016 by LeSellers

[FogCity]

5 hours ago, LeSellers said:

This was based on (and, as best I can tell, reliably) a real event.

Lehi

oops, I did fail to mention that important aspect of the story

[Guest]

On 7/27/2016 at 3:36 PM, mordorbund said:

I think the ordinances themselves weld the dispensations. The sealing ceremony welds the Elias' keys with Elijah's keys. Baptism welds John's keys (of the Aaronic Priesthood) with Peter's keys (of the kingdom).

Joseph and Elijah had to meet and do something that we ARE aware of. He had to give him the keys. Christ holds all keys. Adam under him. And so on down to Peter and John the Baptist.

Adam has apparently appointed Elijah to have stewardship over the sealing keys. Jesus promised to Peter the keys of the kingdom. In the next chapter Peter is meeting with Elijah and Moses (presumably to receive their respective keys). In 1829 Peter, James, and John give to Joseph Smith the keys of the kingdom (the special dispensation they hold) but they do not give the keys of the gathering of Israel or the full sealing keys although they already received these keys. The Lord could give Joseph these keys, but it would be completely incongruous with what we know about the order of the priesthood.

I've been pondering this and I'm still not sure what you mean by the first paragraph.

I know they did stuff that we ARE aware of.  I just believe there was more to the story than what is publicly available.  I think something else happened that is not explicit in the text of that revelation.

Considering the bolded statement, I wonder why is it not the procedure here?  I understand He cannot give ALL keys to EVERY person who needs them.  So, there is an order to things.  But why not a role so prominent as the prophet of a dispensation?  I'm not questioning the Lord's wisdom on this.  On the contrary, I believe there was a wisdom linked to the dispensational transition of keys that we're not aware of.  I'd like to better understand that wisdom.

 

[Guest]

On 7/27/2016 at 8:55 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Hi Carbs -

I don't have a lot of time to answer and will be offline for several days; but to be brief:  Mainline Christians often suggest that our position on the grace/works spectrum and even our emohasis on ordinances generally, give short shrift to the salvific role of Jesus Himself--an assertion to which we would usually reply that Jesus, first and foremost, is what makes it all possible; and that the primacy of His grace does not nullify the roles of individual choice or priesthood authority in the Plan of Salvation.

I am thinking there is a parallel to be drawn here.  But I'm not quite getting it.  What are you saying?

[mordorbund]

On 8/2/2016 at 6:29 PM, Carborendum said:

I've been pondering this and I'm still not sure what you mean by the first paragraph [the ordinances themselves weld the keys].

When it comes to baptism, what keys are exercised? John's key, "of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins", is clearly exercised. Then we record the baptism on a certificate and that's all well and good for this life, but what about the next? Do they have a record of that baptism? Does John's key record in heaven what is recorded in earth? No, but that key (a portion of the sealing keys) was held by Peter and is one of "the keys of the kingdom". In the ordinance of baptism we exercise two keys.

I also provided the example of temple marriages because it has the sealing elements that we often tie to Elijah's key, and it has the Abrahamic covenant which I assume to be a part of the key of "the gospel of Abraham" restored by Elias.

The keys of these different dispensations are welded together and exercised simultaneously in the ordinances.

Quote

Considering the bolded statement [The Lord could give Joseph these keys, but it would be completely incongruous with what we know about the order of the priesthood.], I wonder why is it not the procedure here?  I understand He cannot give ALL keys to EVERY person who needs them.  So, there is an order to things.  But why not a role so prominent as the prophet of a dispensation?  I'm not questioning the Lord's wisdom on this.  On the contrary, I believe there was a wisdom linked to the dispensational transition of keys that we're not aware of.  I'd like to better understand that wisdom

I don't think it's ever been the procedure for the Lord (or His angels) to do anything for us that we can do for ourselves. Jesus brought Lazarus back to life, but family had to roll away the stone and unwrap him. Jesus holds all keys, but Elijah and Moses give their keys to Peter, James, and John (even with Jesus standing right there). John clearly has authority to baptize (Jesus certainly thought so), but Joseph and Oliver are to baptize each other once they get the authority.

On 8/2/2016 at 6:29 PM, Carborendum said:

I know they did stuff that we ARE aware of.  I just believe there was more to the story than what is publicly available.  I think something else happened that is not explicit in the text of that revelation.

You're probably right. The Doctrine and Covenants mention that when keys were passed to Peter, James, and John that they were also instructed concerning the future of the earth.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 8/2/2016 at 4:31 PM, Carborendum said:

I am thinking there is a parallel to be drawn here.  But I'm not quite getting it.  What are you saying?

If I understand your expressed concern correctly, it's that my theory of sealings/patriarchal order puts improper focus on bloodlines/rituals/works, giving short shrift to Jesus Christ and his grace/mercy/atonement.  That, I think, echoes mainline Christian objections to Mormon temple worship generally; and I think the answer to either objection is virtually identical:  It does not constitute a distraction from Jesus Christ's paramount role, because Jesus Christ is fundamentally what makes all of this work out.  He is the key.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If I understand your expressed concern correctly, it's that my theory of sealings/patriarchal order puts improper focus on bloodlines/rituals/works, giving short shrift to Jesus Christ and his grace/mercy/atonement.  That, I think, echoes mainline Christian objections to Mormon temple worship generally; and I think the answer to either objection is virtually identical:  It does not constitute a distraction from Jesus Christ's paramount role, because Jesus Christ is fundamentally what makes all of this work out.  He is the key.

No, the only thing I'm having trouble accepting is the bolded word.  The rest of it is pretty basic LDS theology.  No problems there.  But do we really believe that blood/genes actually carry spirituality on any level?

[Just_A_Guy]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, the only thing I'm having trouble accepting is the bolded word.  The rest of it is pretty basic LDS theology.  No problems there.  But do we really believe that blood/genes actually carry spirituality on any level?

I wouldn't phrase it as blood/genes "carrying spirituality"; but our whole obsession about being Abraham's seed and members of the House of Israel (an obsession that dominates the parent-child sealing ceremony itself) suggests that there does indeed need to be a specific chain of inheritance--whether by birth*, or by adoption. 

 

 

*There's also this notion of "believing blood" that occasionally pops up in LDS discourse, even relatively recently.  But as I understand the concept, "believing blood" just makes a person a little more likely to accept the gospel in the first place; and once you've been baptized there's no real difference as to whether your Abrahamic ancestry comes via blood or via adoption.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I wouldn't phrase it as blood/genes "carrying spirituality"; but our whole obsession about being Abraham's seed and members of the House of Israel (an obsession that dominates the parent-child sealing ceremony itself) suggests that there does indeed need to be a specific chain of inheritance--whether by birth*, or by adoption. 

*There's also this notion of "believing blood" that occasionally pops up in LDS discourse, even relatively recently.  But as I understand the concept, "believing blood" just makes a person a little more likely to accept the gospel in the first place; and once you've been baptized there's no real difference as to whether your Abrahamic ancestry comes via blood or via adoption.

Thanks for explaining "believing blood".  I too have heard it come up in discourse.  But no one was ever able to explain it to me.  And I felt it wasn't pressing enough for me to go look it up.  

I guess that is what I'm saying.  I don't believe in the concept of believing blood.  But as I said before: if there were enough quotes from prophets and enough logic and enough confirmation by the Spirit, then of course things would change.  It isn't a deal breaker for me.  But as of now I don't believe it.

[Just_A_Guy]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I guess that is what I'm saying.  I don't believe in the concept of believing blood.  But as I said before: if there were enough quotes from prophets and enough logic and enough confirmation by the Spirit, then of course things would change.  It isn't a deal breaker for me.  But as of now I don't believe it.

That's fair; though for what it's worth--the concept has radically changed the way I understand the sealing ordinances.  It's certainly not a very PC notion, though!

[Guest]

On 8/5/2016 at 4:12 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

That's fair; though for what it's worth--the concept has radically changed the way I understand the sealing ordinances.  It's certainly not a very PC notion, though!

I get what you mean by PC.  I personally got over the idea of PC when it comes to gospel principles a while ago.  

After a lot of study and pondering, I came to the conclusion that a lot of things that we think of as reprehensible by today's standards actually had a lot of sense to them.  It is up to us to determine whether we're going to listen to the common wisdom of man or the uncommon wisdom of the Lord.  When we see something the Lord is doing that we would otherwise think is reprehensible, it is up to us to decide "well, that's just proof the Bible and BoM are all fake!" OR we can decide to ask,"What am I missing?  That doesn't seem to make sense (for now).  How can learn enough to find the sense in it?"

[Guest]

I got another piece of the puzzle -- but still no definitive answer.  From Revelations of the Restoration I read the following regarding section 110.

Quote

In marriage they are to become "one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made".  Simply stated, salvation is a family affair.

...

The sealing power (are) the purpose and function of the priesthood...  The authority restored by Elijah binds or seals every ordinance so that it is of "efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead" (D&C 132:7).

So, if salvation is a family affair, could it be that it is not simply the nuclear family that we're talking about?  Could it be that it is not simply because families are where we learn about the gospel and by raising children unto the Lord that we reap the greatest of spiritual enlightenment?  Could it be that sealing generationally, and not just to husband and wife has a greater meaning than we currently understand?

How many times have we read on this very forum that the husband - wife sealing is the only one that really matters?  What if that is wrong?  What if the sealing through generations is also quite important?  Has it been revealed why it is so important?

Why else is the Spirit of Elijah so important?  Why else is it that sealings are the highest ordinances in the gospel?  Why is it that the term "the sealing power" is used not only for Temple ordinances, but for the very power of God given to only a very few prophets? (at least publicly known).

I've got a lot of questions here and not a lot of answers.  But I know this is important.  I just can't put it all together just yet.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

I'm going to speculate here in hopes of obtaining further comment or information.  But I'm going to have to walk through it because it's not quite clear in my mind yet.

1) I was pondering the idea of "believing blood".  While I'm not convinced that it is true, it seems to point to some things that I believe could be true.

2) I was conversing with a man in my ward whom many in the stake accept as the go-to guy for doctrinal questions.  He currently serves as the area Church Historian.  I asked him about this.  His only response was that they do things for us beyond the veil.  Somehow their work for us beyond the veil is something we cannot do for ourselves.  I found this difficult to understand or believe.  While I know they are around to help as ministering angels, it just isn't the same as ordinance work.

While I was pondering this, I went back to the "family affair" idea, mix that with "believing blood" and mix that with our ancestors doing things beyond the veil and I wondered about sealing being much more than we give it credit for.  What if it were a requirement in order to obtain the Celestial Kingdom, we needed to not only have a bloodline all the way back to Adam (which we all do) but we had to have a sealing line all the way back to Adam?  I believe I have read something to that effect.  But I don't recall where that was.

What if that welded chain is a requirement for exaltation?  Why would that be?

[zil]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What if it... we had to have a sealing line all the way back to Adam?

That's what some of us have been suggesting all along.  (And how some of us interpret that "chain" statement.)

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Somehow their work for us beyond the veil is something we cannot do for ourselves.  I found this difficult to understand or believe.  While I know they are around to help as ministering angels, it just isn't the same as ordinance work.

We do work for them which they cannot do for themselves.  I find intriguing the idea that the reverse may be true.  Whatever that work might be, it would seem like it would have to be preparatory (preparing for our arrival in the world of spirits) rather than making up for something we missed (seeing as we haven't been there yet)...  But really, we have no idea.

Whatever else is true, I suspect that they have greater power to help us (e.g. as ministering angels or protectors) when they are sealed in our "chain".

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, zil said:

That's what some of us have been suggesting all along.  (And how some of us interpret that "chain" statement.)

We do work for them which they cannot do for themselves.  I find intriguing the idea that the reverse may be true.  Whatever that work might be, it would seem like it would have to be preparatory (preparing for our arrival in the world of spirits) rather than making up for something we missed (seeing as we haven't been there yet)...  But really, we have no idea.

Whatever else is true, I suspect that they have greater power to help us (e.g. as ministering angels or protectors) when they are sealed in our "chain".

This is something I have recently come to believe.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, zil said:

That's what some of us have been suggesting all along.  (And how some of us interpret that "chain" statement.)

I do remember people saying this.  And I'm aware of it.  But I simply don't understand the why.  

11 minutes ago, zil said:

We do work for them which they cannot do for themselves.  I find intriguing the idea that the reverse may be true.  Whatever that work might be, it would seem like it would have to be preparatory (preparing for our arrival in the world of spirits) rather than making up for something we missed (seeing as we haven't been there yet)...  But really, we have no idea.

Yes, this was something that I believe this brother whom I referred to had greater knowledge about, but he was reticent to reveal it to me.

11 minutes ago, zil said:

Whatever else is true, I suspect that they have greater power to help us (e.g. as ministering angels or protectors) when they are sealed in our "chain".

Maybe.  I'm just not certain about that because of my own experiences with ministering angels.

[zil]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, this was something that I believe this brother whom I referred to had greater knowledge about, but he was reticent to reveal it to me.

Don't worry, you'll learn it eventually.

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Maybe.  I'm just not certain about that because of my own experiences with ministering angels.

Note that I said "greater" and did not exclude either that a particular spirit can help you without this benefit, nor that it is necessary in order for them to be able to help you:

a) Can spirits descended from a different son of Noah than we were and with no closer relation to us help us?  (I don't see why not.)

b) Can spirits of those from whom we are descended but to whom we are not sealed help us?  (I don't see why not.)

c) Are spirits who are more closely related to us better able to help us?  (Perhaps, there are multiple reasons to think so - e.g. they know us better; family is clearly significant, even if we don't understand that fully; stewardship may be involved.)

d) Are spirits better able to progress when they have received ordinances and are keeping covenants (than spirits who have not)?  (Seems obvious.)

e) Are spirits who have progressed farther better able to aid others (than spirits who have not progressed)? (Seems obvious.)

f) Sealing parents to children is an ordinance, right? (Yes)

g) If I am sealed to my parents, and my parents are sealed to their parents, I am connected to my grandparents via my parents - we form a chain that is sealed together.

h) Merge all that together and it seems logical to me that a near relative to whom I am sealed is better able to help me than if they weren't a near relative, or if they hadn't received ordinances and kept covenants.  That is, that particular spirit is better able than that spirit would otherwise be.  Now, are they better able to help me than some other less-related spirit who is either not sealed to me at all, or less-directly sealed to me?  It probably depends on who "they" are and who "some other spirit" is and what work each has been assigned to do.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, zil said:

Don't worry, you'll learn it eventually.

Thanks for your vote of confidence.

18 minutes ago, zil said:

c) Are spirits who are more closely related to us better able to help us?  (Perhaps, there are multiple reasons to think so - e.g. they know us better; family is clearly significant, even if we don't understand that fully; stewardship may be involved.)

This may be a roadblock for my understanding this principle.  I was never close to my family growing up.  I just never fit in.  We just saw the world differently.  We saw the gospel differently.  We saw politics differently.  We saw people differently.  I was raised in the family.  But somehow I was just completely different in every meaningful sense.

I fit much better with @LeSellers' family.  I know a lot of people are put off by his gruff demeanor online.  But in person, he's much more affable.

So, to believe they (my sealed family) can help me any better than a friend can... is a hard sell to me.  I know of the idealized scenario.  But that knowledge and recognition is all intellectual, not spiritual or emotional -- certainly not experiential.  Sucks to be me.

Maybe that means that I need to try to mend rifts in my family.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Thanks for your vote of confidence.

Please tell me that was really dry humor and you got my somewhat morbid joke.

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This may be a roadblock for my understanding this principle.  I was never close to my family growing up.  I just never fit in.  We just saw the world differently.  We saw the gospel differently.  We saw politics differently.  We saw people differently.  I was raised in the family.  But somehow I was just completely different in every meaningful sense.

So, to believe they can help me any better than a friend can... is a hard sell to me.  I know of the idealized scenario.  But that knowledge and recognition is all intellectual, not spiritual or emotional.  Sucks to be me.

Maybe that means that I need to try to mend rifts in my family.

I fully comprehend the above comment.  I have often wondered about similar things, being more conscious of feelings of love (e.g. brotherly love) toward close friends than I consciously felt toward family, and not really understanding people with extremely close, friend-like family relationships.  I note that all those close friendships of mine eventually ended with geographic distance*.  Meanwhile, my family relationships persist mostly unchanged despite geographic distance...

* (despite things like email and letter-writing - I sometimes believe I'm the only person on the planet who believes it's possible to have a close friendship without being geographically close.)

I don't know the answer to your question, but I have often wondered "what about friends"?  I wonder even more than some might because my closest friends have often been men, and if you believe some around here, that's so not gonna happen ever again, let alone in the eternities (where, per said people, there's a male / female division, complete with electric fence, in the eternities and never the twain shall meet unless they're married to each other)...

Sorry, can't help you here.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, zil said:

Please tell me that was really dry humor and you got my somewhat morbid joke.

I fully comprehend the above comment.  I have often wondered about similar things, being more conscious of feelings of love (e.g. brotherly love) toward close friends than I consciously felt toward family, and not really understanding people with extremely close, friend-like family relationships.  I note that all those close friendships of mine eventually ended with geographic distance*.  Meanwhile, my family relationships persist mostly unchanged despite geographic distance...

* (despite things like email and letter-writing - I sometimes believe I'm the only person on the planet who believes it's possible to have a close friendship without being geographically close.)

I don't know the answer to your question, but I have often wondered "what about friends"?  I wonder even more than some might because my closest friends have often been men, and if you believe some around here, that's so not gonna happen ever again, let alone in the eternities (where, per said people, there's a male / female division, complete with electric fence, in the eternities and never the twain shall meet unless they're married to each other)...

Sorry, can't help you here.

Yes, that was dry humor.

Electric fence... hmm...  That gives me an idea.  I've told my daughter that she's not allowed to date until she's 35.  Not an electric fence, but a taser might be handy.