Scott

When did temple marriage begin?

Recommended Posts

I thought to address my thoughts to several posters but rather than call out a few by name and miss someone :::  Marriage is "ordained" of G-d but when did that ordinance take place?   Even in the temple we do not currently seal anyone (for the dead) that was not previously married but I am of the opinion that many that remained single in mortality will be sealed and as I understand that is an ordinance that must be done by mortals (physical beings that are not resurrected) on earth.

But I also wish to extend the thought that time is not quite what most (including posters on this thread - myself included) seem to think of it.  Einstein suggested with special relativity that time is not a universal constant and I am quite sure his theories are not the end of what is yet to be understood.  This is a dispensation of the fulness of time - meaning that all things are restored.  The simple logic of this concept is that there is nothing new but all things are things that have been before.  See Ecc 1:9-10 and remember when that was given (Under the Law of Moses). 

But I will throw out another thought into this mix - that is the thought that Ecc 1:9-10 is an extended reference to a pre existence (among other things) and that no ordinance is performed by the priesthood in mortality that was not pre-ordained in the pre-existence.  (See also Alma Chapter 13).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

That isn't at all where I am.

The sealing power possesses much more than the ability to seal spouses together. We learn as much from Alma. It is further evidenced by the fact that the sealing power as, according to Joseph Smith, it may only be held by one person on the earth at any time. Yet we have multiple sealers in each temple capable of sealing spouses. The only way this can be consistent is if temple sealers are authorized only to exercise a subset of the sealing power entrusted to the prophet.

This really ends up adding more confusion because of terminology, as I have no dispute with the claim that the sealing power was present in ancient times, but I'm deeply skeptical that sealings (as in, eternal marriages) existed in any way that we would recognized them.

Why are you skeptical that marriages sealed by priesthood power and authority existed? We have Adam and Eve, a wonderful description of the Abrahamic covenant and modern revelation about restoring ordinances from the past.

My understanding of the scriptures is that we are sealed up unto eternal life and exaltation -- to Christ -- through marriage and generational ties (whether by birth or by adoption) back to Adam and Eve. This is how calling and election is "made sure" (sealed). The elements and forces of nature are sealed up unto the purposes of God, hence the prophets' control over mountains, rivers, famines, etc. The resurrection (inseparably connected spirit and element) would also be an outcome of exercising the sealing power.

At any rate, eternal or temple marriage (the man-woman joint sealing) is the crux of the kind of life where heaven and earth come together physically and spiritually, both in mortality (or temporally) and eternally.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CV75 said:

Why are you skeptical that marriages sealed by priesthood power and authority existed? ........

I've already addressed this in my first posting on this thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

This really ends up adding more confusion because of terminology, as I have no dispute with the claim that the sealing power was present in ancient times, but I'm deeply skeptical that sealings (as in, eternal marriages) existed in any way that we would recognized them.

I have no problem with believing that the liturgy has changed (as @Just_A_Guy described).  I readily believe that.  There's tremendous evidence that indicates that.  But to think that all the families before modern times never had any sealings (in any way, shape, or form) is a big pill to swallow considering how important it is.  D&C 128:18

Further, as @Vort said, even if the "ordinance" as we know it did not exist, the concept had to be there or else Elijah really had no function in either of his visits to the earth since his translation.  The power was there.  The keys were there.  There had to be a doctrine surrounding it.  So, "A completely modern invention"???  Not buying it.

Yes, there is more to sealing than simply binding families.  But that is a VERY important part -- much more than we give it credit.

Still, I had to take some time researching sealings.  And, I have to admit, there is certainly a lack of prophetic statements regarding "sealed marriages" in ancient times.  That is very peculiar indeed.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Mores said:

I have no problem with believing that the liturgy has changed (as @Just_A_Guy described).  I readily believe that.  There's tremendous evidence that indicates that.  But to think that all the families before modern times never had any sealings (in any way, shape, or form) is a big pill to swallow considering how important it is.

Further, as @Vort said, even if the "ordinance" as we know it did not exist, the concept had to be there or else Elijah really had no function in either of his visits to the earth since his translation.  The power was there.  The keys were there.  There had to be a doctrine surrounding it.  So, "A completely modern invention"???  Not buying it.

Yes, there is more to sealing than simply binding families.  But that is a VERY important part -- much more than we give it credit. D&C 128:18

Still, I had to take some time researching sealings.  And, I have to admit, there is certainly a lack of prophetic statements regarding "sealed marriages" in ancient times.  That is very peculiar indeed.

In my response, I'm going to assume that the pill your having a hard time swallowing is with regards to my statements about sealing from the time of Moses to the time of Christ.  Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

and I'll concede that there may have been some select few who possessed necessary keys and/or who knew about sealings/eternal marriages and such. We just have no evidence to suggest it went beyond a very select few. There's no evidence to support that the Israelites had a general concept of it; it wasn't taught broadly; and it wasn't practiced broadly.  

So I guess it's a matter of standards of evidence.  If you're content to say, "But Elijah..therefore it was a Thing," then so be it.  But when I look at the available evidence, if the best we can do is speculate that maybe a few dozens (the known prophets)--or if I'm really generous, a couple hundred--eternal marriages were bound and sealed using that sealing power over the course of 1500 years of history--well, to me that isn't prominent enough to be able to call it a Thing.

 

ADDENDUM:

I will add that even if sealings were not a Thing anciently...even if they prove to be an entirely modern invention...that doesn't bother me.  I've become comfortable with the notion that ordinances and religious practices get tailored to the times we live in. Maybe the sealing was introduced when it was to build a firewall against the social problems that would crop up as the industrial revolution and technological revolutions took shape. Maybe not.  I don't claim to know the mind of God, nor his motives. But I do trust him to implement religious practices that are appropriate to the times I live in.

Likewise, I'm not convinced that ancient peoples are required to satisfy all of the same conditions for salvation that we are.  Sure, we can point to D&C 131 and say except a man enter into eternal marriage he cannot be saved, but it's less clear to me that we can retroactively apply that to all of history. It's tempting to do so, because of the whole, "God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" thing. But I think we may at times impose restrictions on God in order to simplify how we think about the world. 

I don't have a problem being held to different standards than those who came before me.  It even seems fair, given that I have cars and computers and paid vacation time and those that came before me had high infant mortality rates.

Edited by MarginOfError

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

In my response, I'm going to assume that the pill your having a hard time swallowing is with regards to my statements about sealing from the time of Moses to the time of Christ.  Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

No, actually, I'm open to a certain dispensation not quite having some ordinances available to them.  But the doctrine or belief had to be there (in some way shape or form).  I just had a problem with your phrase "A completely modern invention".

3 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

and I'll concede that there may have been some select few who possessed necessary keys and/or who knew about sealings/eternal marriages and such.

OK.  Not 100%, but that pretty much puts you back into the general vicinity of where I am.

3 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

We just have no evidence to suggest it went beyond a very select few.

So I guess it's a matter of standards of evidence.  If you're content to say, "But Elijah..therefore it was a Thing," then so be it.  But when I look at the available evidence, if the best we can do is speculate that maybe a few dozens (the known prophets)--or if I'm really generous, a couple hundred--eternal marriages were bound and sealed using that sealing power over the course of 1500 years of history--well, to me that isn't prominent enough to be able to call it a Thing.

How about this:

Quote

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

D&C 131: 2-3

So, if none of the past dispensations had the doctrine or ordinance, then none of them really had the hope of obtaining the Celestial Kingdom.  There's a big problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mores said:

No, actually, I'm open to a certain dispensation not quite having some ordinances available to them.  But the doctrine or belief had to be there (in some way shape or form).  I just had a problem with your phrase "A completely modern invention".

OK.  Not 100%, but that pretty much puts you back into the general vicinity of where I am.

How about this:

So, if none of the past dispensations had the doctrine or ordinance, then none of them really had the hope of obtaining the Celestial Kingdom.  There's a big problem with that.

I apologize, I was drafting an addendum while you were responding, apparently.  Please return to my previous post because I address the D&C 131 issue in my addendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

I've already addressed this in my first posting on this thread.

 

Isaiah 8:16-18 (and 62:1-5; in context of the Abrahamic covenant and the Bridegroom metaphor: “Bind up the testimony, seal the law [of Abraham] among my disciples [black and white, bond and free, male and female]. And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house [multi-generational family, by birth and adoption] of Jacob, and I will look for him. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me [legitimately, through the binding and sealing law or covenant which covers marriage] are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.” These scriptures all have to do with the pattern of heaven being replicated in our temporal sphere through covenant in the family, the nation and Zion (see Jeremiah 33: 23-36).

Joel 2: 16-17 speaks of sealing marriages restored in the last days, protecting the families: “Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet. Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?”

The cursing of apostate Israel brings just the opposite, the voice being the words of the mouth by which the bridegroom and bride make this covenant in conjunction with the voice of the Lord and the voice of the Spirit.:

Jeremiah 7:34, 16:9, and 25:10: “Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate;”

“For thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will cause to cease out of this place in your eyes, and in your days, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride;” “Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle.”

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I don't have a problem being held to different standards than those who came before me.  It even seems fair, given that I have cars and computers and paid vacation time and those that came before me had high infant mortality rates.

I don't either, but the concept of sealing bridegrooms and brides, children and families is clearly mentioned throughout the Old Testament. This is what the ancients considered the greatest blessing (a heritage of heirs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I apologize, I was drafting an addendum while you were responding, apparently.  Please return to my previous post because I address the D&C 131 issue in my addendum.

Forgive me.  But I am having a problem understanding your "addressing it".  Summary of your addendum: Things can be different and still be ok.

Ok...  If I actually understand what you're getting at, that seems no better than "simply believing it without any evidence or logic" which you clearly condemned earlier.

And what about:

Quote

Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.

D&C 22:1

EDIT: I still don't think you're addressing the use of the word "invention".

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mores said:

Forgive me.  But I am having a problem understanding your "addressing it".  Summary of your addendum: Things can be different and still be ok.

Ok...  If I actually understand what you're getting at, that seems no better than "simply believing it without any evidence or logic" which you clearly condemned earlier.

I'm with you.  I don't think I could justify a claim that my apathy toward whether or not ancient peoples practiced eternal marriage is better than believing that they did without evidence or logic. Largely because I'm not sure you can make a claim that apathy is better than anything. But then, maybe I just don't care enough to make the argument.....

I just find the arguments to support ancient eternal marriages to be unpersuasive, or resting on assumptions that I don't submit to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm with you.  I don't think I could justify a claim that my apathy toward whether or not ancient peoples practiced eternal marriage is better than believing that they did without evidence or logic. Largely because I'm not sure you can make a claim that apathy is better than anything. But then, maybe I just don't care enough to make the argument.....

I just find the arguments to support ancient eternal marriages to be unpersuasive, or resting on assumptions that I don't submit to. 

You're still not addressing your use of the word "invention."

I know.  You don't have to.  I can't force you.  But why would you characterize it that way at all?

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Isaiah 8:16-18 (and 62:1-5; in context of the Abrahamic covenant and the Bridegroom metaphor: “Bind up the testimony, seal the law [of Abraham] among my disciples [black and white, bond and free, male and female]. And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house [multi-generational family, by birth and adoption] of Jacob, and I will look for him. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me [legitimately, through the binding and sealing law or covenant which covers marriage] are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.” These scriptures all have to do with the pattern of heaven being replicated in our temporal sphere through covenant in the family, the nation and Zion (see Jeremiah 33: 23-36).

 

Joel 2: 16-17 speaks of sealing marriages restored in the last days, protecting the families: “Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet. Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?”

 

The cursing of apostate Israel brings just the opposite, the voice being the words of the mouth by which the bridegroom and bride make this covenant in conjunction with the voice of the Lord and the voice of the Spirit.:

 

Jeremiah 7:34, 16:9, and 25:10: “Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate;”

 

“For thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will cause to cease out of this place in your eyes, and in your days, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride;”

 

“Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle.”

 

CV75, your exegesis of Isaiah 8 is an excellent and fascinating example of “likening”; but read in the context of Isaiah 7-9, I’m not at all convinced that the author meant to convey anything like what you’re reading out of it.  Ditto for Joel 2–the immediate point isn’t that eternal marriage is great or necessary; it’s that Israel has sinned so deeply that they need to collectively get out and repent now—even to the point of interrupting any weddings currently underway so that the people can assemble and express their penitence.

Yes, culturally ancient Israel deeply valued marriage and parent-child ties; and this attitude saturates the Old Testament.  Beyond that, though, there seems to be a good deal of seeing what we want to/think we ought to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Isaiah 8:16-18 (and 62:1-5; in context of the Abrahamic covenant and the Bridegroom metaphor: “Bind up the testimony, seal the law [of Abraham] among my disciples [black and white, bond and free, male and female]. And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house [multi-generational family, by birth and adoption] of Jacob, and I will look for him. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me [legitimately, through the binding and sealing law or covenant which covers marriage] are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.” These scriptures all have to do with the pattern of heaven being replicated in our temporal sphere through covenant in the family, the nation and Zion (see Jeremiah 33: 23-36).

Joel 2: 16-17 speaks of sealing marriages restored in the last days, protecting the families: “Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet. Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?”

The cursing of apostate Israel brings just the opposite, the voice being the words of the mouth by which the bridegroom and bride make this covenant in conjunction with the voice of the Lord and the voice of the Spirit.:

Jeremiah 7:34, 16:9, and 25:10: “Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate;”

“For thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will cause to cease out of this place in your eyes, and in your days, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride;” “Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle.”

Well yeah, we can proof text into the scriptures all of the parentheticals we like and create evidence for whatever pet doctrine we want.

But adding in our own parentheticals doesn't do anything to explain or justify what the author or the contemporary reader would have understood.  And my understanding is that the author and contemporary readers would have, for instance, viewed a large house/posterity as a sign of power and wealth. 

Merely quoting scripture and inserting modern terms doesn't constitute evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't either, but the concept of sealing bridegrooms and brides, children and families is clearly mentioned throughout the Old Testament. This is what the ancients considered the greatest blessing (a heritage of heirs).

Is this in the JST?  I'm not an Old Testament scholar, but I don't recall any mention of marriage or family sealings in the Bible versions that I'm most familiar with.  In fact, when I mention the concept of "sealing" to my Protestant friends, they are somewhat startled by the whole idea, and one woman was aghast.  But she had just gone through a messy divorce, and she did not welcome any doctrines that could threaten the finality of her divorce. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mores said:

You're still not addressing your use of the word "invention."

I know.  You don't have to.  I can't force you.  But why would you characterize it that way at all?

You're right.  I got caught up in other things.

Perhaps "invention" is too strong a word.  Maybe I should be using something more like implementation, or practice.  Something that conveys that the ideas may have existed in some rare cases, but the behavior did not.  I'm not entirely sure what the best word for that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1985/08/what-i-hope-you-will-teach-your-children-about-the-temple?lang=eng

At about 40% of the way down, do a "find on this page" for "section 107"

Quote

But this order is otherwise described in modern revelation as an order of family government where a man and woman enter into a covenant with God—just as did Adam and Eve—to be sealed for eternity, to have posterity, and to do the will and work of God throughout their mortality.

 

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion above leads me to think that I have misunderstood the concept of sealing.  When I started learning about the Church, I remember my shock at hearing the term "sealing" in the context of marriages.  I immediately thought of hermetically sealed or even shrink-wrapped couples before the altar.  

But now I'm wondering whether "seal" means something more like embossing a gold-foil star at the bottom of a document, and maybe "a sealed couple" is better described as "a celestially certified couple."  Is this a useful way of understanding this concept?  Or does the concept of sealing imply some new level of spiritual inseparablility between a husband a wife?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Texan said:

The discussion above leads me to think that I have misunderstood the concept of sealing.  When I started learning about the Church, I remember my shock at hearing the term "sealing" in the context of marriages.  I immediately thought of hermetically sealed or even shrink-wrapped couples before the altar.  

But now I'm wondering whether "seal" means something more like embossing a gold-foil star at the bottom of a document, and maybe "a sealed couple" is better described as "a celestially certified couple."  Is this a useful way of understanding this concept?  Or does the concept of sealing imply some new level of spiritual inseparablility between a husband a wife?

 

I think that's the topic of a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Give me a call when animal sacrifice makes its come back........

Joseph Smith (President)

    [T]he offering of sacrifice ... shall be continued at the last time; for all the ordinances and duties that ever have been required by the Priesthood, under the directions and commandments of the Almighty in any of the dispensations, shall all be had in the last dispensation, therefore all things had under the authority of the Priesthood at any former period, shall be had again, bringing to pass the restoration spoken of by the mouth of all the Holy Prophets; then shall the sons of Levi offer an acceptable offering to the Lord....

    It is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [ie.] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in [the] future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the prophets.

    The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. We frequently have mention made of the offering of sacrifice by the servants of the Most High in ancient days, prior to the law of Moses; which ordinances will be continued when the Priesthood is restored with all its authority, power and blessings….

    These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the Holy Prophets be brought to pass. It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.

    It may be asked by some, what necessity for sacrifice, since the Great Sacrifice was offered? In answer to which, if repentance, baptism, and faith existed prior to the days of Christ, what necessity for them since that time? The Priesthood has descended in a regular line from father to son, through their succeeding generations. (Teachings, p. 171–73)

Joseph Fielding Smith (Quorum of the Twelve)

    Now in the nature of things, the law of sacrifice will have to be restored, or all things which were decreed by the Lord would not be restored. It will be necessary, therefore, for the sons of Levi, who offered the blood sacrifices anciently in Israel, to offer such a sacrifice again to round out and complete this ordinance in this dispensation. Sacrifice by the shedding of blood was instituted in the days of Adam and of necessity will have to be restored.

    The sacrifice of animals will be done to complete the restoration when the temple spoken of [by Joseph Smith] is built; at the beginning of the millennium, or in the restoration, blood sacrifices will be performed long enough to complete the fulness of the restoration in this dispensation. Afterwards sacrifice will be of some other character. (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:94)

Jeffrey R. Holland (Quorum of the Twelve)

    One of their “offerings,” as taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, is a book of remembrance, to be presented to the Lord “in his holy temple, ... a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation” (D&C 128:24).  

    The Prophet also taught that these Levitical duties would include blood [animal] sacrifice as “an offering in righteousness” to the Lord in the temple of the New Jerusalem [see TPJS, 171-173]. (Christ and the New Covenant, p. 294-295) (emphasis on quotes are mine)

Some other links that highlight similar statements:

1) https://askgramps.org/will-the-levites-hold-a-literal-blood-sacrifice-in-the-last-days/

2) https://askgramps.org/what-is-meant-by-the-sons-of-levi-offering-up-a-sacrifice/

3) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-13-the-restoration-of-the-aaronic-priesthood?lang=eng

Yes, I stand by the quoted statement, "I think some are forgetting the concept of "restore.""

 

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

That isn't at all where I am.

The sealing power possesses much more than the ability to seal spouses together. We learn as much from Alma. It is further evidenced by the fact that the sealing power as, according to Joseph Smith, it may only be held by one person on the earth at any time. Yet we have multiple sealers in each temple capable of sealing spouses. The only way this can be consistent is if temple sealers are authorized only to exercise a subset of the sealing power entrusted to the prophet.

This really ends up adding more confusion because of terminology, as I have no dispute with the claim that the sealing power was present in ancient times, but I'm deeply skeptical that sealings (as in, eternal marriages) existed in any way that we would recognized them.

I would preface my remarks by indirect reference to Satan and his plan (desire) to prevent Celestial empowerment.  There is nothing more threatening to him.  Now a vague indirect reference as a thought.  There are no original texts of sacred scripture.  Not from the Bible, not from the Book of Mormon, not from the Pearl of Great Price and not even from the Doctrine and Covenants.  For those that know about document declarations - there are no autograph documents of divine scripture - in some cases we have what can be argued as "autograms" (copies of originals made in the same era and time as the original) but no autographs (written by the hand of that person through whom the scripture came).  There is one possible exception but that particular document is not in any modern scripture - interesting!

But there are clues and indications that sealing power was known of in ancient artifacts and documents outside of scripture.  For one - for anyone that has walked through a buddhist cemetery you will know that Asia is sprinkled with hints.  Hugh Nibley makes it clear that the ancient Egyptians were ripe with a great deal of knowledge in his book "Joseph Smith Papyri".  I would add some other thoughts - for those of us that have knowledge of the temple rites are able to recognize what some would describe as "vague" references in the Book of Enoch, several documents in the Dead Sea Scrolls, references in the ancient Zen, Zoroaster and other ancient eastern documents.  Some may argue because there is not always a direct reference to a unique or particular marriage (though divine marriage - divine being what I believe is a vague reference to eternal) but definitely to sealing powers that have eternal meaning - such as a "secret" new name in heaven or the kingdom of G-d.  Realizing, as we all should, that there is no spiritual reason to have part of sealing without the most important element, being marriage.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now