What does sealing of spouses imply and what are benefits?


richard7900
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi. Two people get married on the earth, but do not receive the testimony of Jesus. In other words, they do not identify as Christians. They die. In the spirit world the gospel is preached to them and they accept. We LDS perform a sealing ordinance for them.  Assuming that the sealing is valid, does it imply the spouses can obtain exaltation?  If they cannot obtain exaltation, is the sealing of some other kind of benefit?  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All revealed ordinances are done today for the purpose of exaltation. Though ordinances such as baptism will surely be required for lesser kingdoms, we have been given almost no information on that. Our concern for ourselves, our descendants, and our ancestors is exaltation. So yes, the sealing of spouses necessarily implies the possibility of exaltation.

Although I can't state it as absolutely settled doctrine, it is clear to me that temple sealings, and specifically the sealing of spouses, has no purpose or even any meaning outside the exalted condition. Exaltation in the celestial kingdom of our Father and his Christ is the only venue where marriage exists in the eternities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

All revealed ordinances are done today for the purpose of exaltation.

I told this to my mission companion who never had a baby blessing. I tried to convince him to let me give him one, but he never did ok it 😕

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, richard7900 said:

Hi. Two people get married on the earth, but do not receive the testimony of Jesus. In other words, they do not identify as Christians. They die. In the spirit world the gospel is preached to them and they accept. We LDS perform a sealing ordinance for them.  Assuming that the sealing is valid, does it imply the spouses can obtain exaltation?  If they cannot obtain exaltation, is the sealing of some other kind of benefit?  Thanks.

They can 100% obtain exhalation and full co-heirs with Christ.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, richard7900 said:

Hi. Two people get married on the earth, but do not receive the testimony of Jesus. In other words, they do not identify as Christians. They die. In the spirit world the gospel is preached to them and they accept. We LDS perform a sealing ordinance for them.  Assuming that the sealing is valid, does it imply the spouses can obtain exaltation?  If they cannot obtain exaltation, is the sealing of some other kind of benefit?  Thanks.

Well, “do not receive the testimony of Jesus” is kind of tricky given D&C 76, where very similar wording describes those of the Terrestrial and not the Celestial kingdom.  

If it’s just a matter of them not having heard the Gospel, and receiving it hereafter—then they’re still eligible for celestial glory once the sealings are done.

If, in life, they heard and rejected the Gospel so thoroughly that God, in His perfect justice and mercy, is compelled to conclude that they “received not the testimony of Jesus”—then they are simply ineligible for celestial glory.  

If a husband-wife sealing retains any efficacy at all for two spouses in the Terrestrial kingdom, the nature of that relationship has not been revealed.  The blessings of celestial marriage, so far as they are taught in the scriptures and in holy places, pertain to the Celestial kingdom.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Fether said:

I told this to my mission companion who never had a baby blessing. I tried to convince him to let me give him one, but he never did ok it 😕

Allow me to rephrase. :)

All revealed ordinances are for the benefit of the heirs of exaltation and are intended to that end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most everyone in the UK has a knowledge of Jesus Christ. They know the basics of the story in the New Testament. But never-the-less many just don't bother to look further into the Bible, so they don't end up being church-goers. They themselves would generally identify as Christian though. I think these people have, in a kind of way, received the testimony of Jesus - at least they have not rejected it, they don't specifically deny the testimony of Jesus.  I think most all of my living family members are in the situation.  They have not had the restored gospel preached to them.  Same with my deceased relatives.

Edited by richard7900
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, richard7900 said:

Most everyone in the UK has a knowledge of Jesus Christ. They know the basics of the story in the New Testament. But never-the-less many just don't bother to look further into the Bible, so they don't end up being church-goers. They themselves would generally identify as Christian though. I think these people have, in a kind of way, received the testimony of Jesus - at least they have not rejected it, they don't specifically deny the testimony of Jesus.  I think most all of my living family members are in the situation.  They have not had the restored gospel preached to them.  Same with my deceased relatives.

Isn't it great that they will all have the opportunity to fully embrace Him, even after death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2019 at 5:26 PM, richard7900 said:

Hi. Two people get married on the earth, but do not receive the testimony of Jesus. In other words, they do not identify as Christians. They die. In the spirit world the gospel is preached to them and they accept. We LDS perform a sealing ordinance for them.  Assuming that the sealing is valid, does it imply the spouses can obtain exaltation?  If they cannot obtain exaltation, is the sealing of some other kind of benefit?  Thanks.

I assume that "the sealing is valid" means the proxy temple ordinance was accepted by the couple and subsequently be validated by the Holy Spirit of promise.

I believe that yes, the couples can obtain exaltation (that is the purpose of sealing them). I think the benefits of sealing are all wrapped into one: children to couples, all the way back to Adam and ultimately back to Heavenly Father in the resurrected flesh. These may be seen as "some other kind of benefit" when the couple decide not to remain together, as happens in this life through divorce, in that a) they are sill sealed to their respective  parents and ultimately to God; b) their children are still sealed to one or the other or both and ultimately to God. If someone loses their exaltation, the sealing chain is reorganized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

b) their children are still sealed to one or the other or both and ultimately to God

I offer the following thought: As far as I can tell, children are not sealed to their individual parents, but rather sealed within their parents' eternal marital union. My understanding is that the only one-to-one sealing is that of husband and wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I offer the following thought: As far as I can tell, children are not sealed to their individual parents, but rather sealed within their parents' eternal marital union. My understanding is that the only one-to-one sealing is that of husband and wife.

That makes sense, this way the chain of individuals is eventually kept whole back to Adam only through sealed parents, whether through birth (BIC) or adoption (and either corrected as needed prior to resurrection), and only couples are exalted with their married children / descendants and married parents / ancestors.

So might be better stated: b) their children are still sealed to one divorced parent and to whomever they are sealed; or to the other parent and to whomever they are sealed; or both parents who are sealed and never divorced; and ultimately to God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say the couple is in the afterlife, and have been convinced of Christ's divinity, and are now awaiting their sealing blessing.   Shall we deny them this, because we don't know their state?  No, we must unlock the keys of exhalation to everyone we possibly can, and as soon as we can for their benefit.

I also believe the spirits in prison have a much more clear understanding of things that we know.  

 

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears reading Doctrine & Covenants section 76 there are going to be a lot of inhabitants in the telestial kingdom of glory.  If the below scripture is correct in what I read from it that may be the kingdom with most of the inhabitants of the Earth in it.

"But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore; And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever;"  -- Doctrine & Covenants 76:109-110

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2019 at 2:09 PM, Vort said:

I offer the following thought: As far as I can tell, children are not sealed to their individual parents, but rather sealed within their parents' eternal marital union. My understanding is that the only one-to-one sealing is that of husband and wife.

This creates a problem, I think. If that marital union is broken, your statement means that the children are also not sealed to their parents. I can understand the sealing of parents to children is broken when a temple divorce occurs, but what if the parents only get a civil divorce?

Is it in vain to maintain a temple sealing in an effort to keep that connection with one's children even if the spouse no longer wants to be married?

I have never considered this proposition you've provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion that there are a great many things that we do not know very much about.  We do know that sealing is an necessary ordinance for citizenship in the Celestial Kingdom.  But I do not think there is much concerning "Clear" doctrine or information about things Celestial or why it is called a Kingdom in light of such things as liberty, freedom and self determination.  Why is it not called the Celestial Democracy?  or even Republic?

From my background in physics; I am quite impressed by the isotropic nature of the universe and how all things are governed and ordered by law.  Symbolically law is represented with a two edged sword.  I speculate that this is because of two aspects of law and if an individual is liberated or governed by law.  I am of the mind that all individuals governed by the laws of G-d will be sealed - the question is if a person acts according to the law or if they are acted upon and inconvenienced because of the law. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

This creates a problem, I think. If that marital union is broken, your statement means that the children are also not sealed to their parents. I can understand the sealing of parents to children is broken when a temple divorce occurs, but what if the parents only get a civil divorce?

It is beyond argument, I think, that a child is sealed only within his parents' union rather than to the individual parents. This is why a child is "born in the covenant" of his parents' marriage sealing, requiring no other ordinance. A child being sealed to parents exactly duplicates the BIC status.

As for why undoing the underlying sealing doesn't undo the dependent status of children either BIC or sealed: I don't know. That appears to be the way things are. Not a satisfying answer, I know, but I don't have anything better.

9 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Is it in vain to maintain a temple sealing in an effort to keep that connection with one's children even if the spouse no longer wants to be married?

I think it's never vain to seek to preserve an eternal relationship. But I suspect that trying to preserve a foundering marriage because you're afraid that the sealing dissolution will separate you from your children is an effort based on a faulty understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

 ... But I do not think there is much concerning "Clear" doctrine or information about things Celestial or why it is called a Kingdom in light of such things as liberty, freedom and self determination.  Why is it not called the Celestial Democracy?  or even Republic?

Hello, @Traveler, Mark Harrison here. I'm wondering whether your question about why the Celestial Kingdom is not called the Celestial Democracy or Celestial Republic was offered tongue-in-cheek. If so that would render the rest of my remark moot. But if you meant what you wrote, then I would like to ask you what 'Kingdom' means to you in the context of the doctrine. I suppose the answer to your question rests there, right? 

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

From my background in physics; I am quite impressed by the isotropic nature of the universe and how all things are governed and ordered by law.  Symbolically law is represented with a two edged sword.  I speculate that this is because of two aspects of law and if an individual is liberated or governed by law.  I am of the mind that all individuals governed by the laws of G-d will be sealed - the question is if a person acts according to the law or if they are acted upon and inconvenienced because of the law. 

This would be an interesting topic if we could chat face-to-face. I think such a chat must needs explore speculations with regards to such questions as whether the Universe as we theorize it today includes the Celestial Kingdom, or whether it (the Universe) is tucked away in some tiny corner of the Celestial Kingdom. We could talk about whether its isotropic nature is the final word, or merely all we have to work with at present (science survives, does it not, on the assumption that what we "know" is always subject to revision).  And then there's that pesky fact that we stand on ground likely to shake us if we make too firm a habit of exploring our faith by resorting to pages from a current science book.  Nevertheless, I appreciate your metaphor. It encourages me to try to make choices that would help me situate myself on the better side of the sword. Thanks for giving me food for thought. :)

All my best to you, Sir.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vort said:

It is beyond argument, I think, that a child is sealed only within his parents' union rather than to the individual parents.

I wasn't making an argument. I was asking for clarification. Is it your understanding that if the parents receive a temple divorce, the children are no longer sealed to anyone?

 
 
 
 
5 hours ago, Vort said:

As for why undoing the underlying sealing doesn't undo the dependent status of children either BIC or sealed: I don't know. That appears to be the way things are. Not a satisfying answer, I know, but I don't have anything better.

It appears that I have my answer to the previous question. This idea that the sealing status of children who would technically be born into a broken covenant remains intact even though the covenant it was sealed under is now broken only confuses the situation even more.

5 hours ago, Vort said:

I think it's never vain to seek to preserve an eternal relationship.

I was talking about a specific reason for maintaining the eternal relationship, keeping it for the children's sake. Where to people divorce and the spouse really hates the other, it is vain to keep it in force. Another reason why one might struggle to keep the relationship is the prospect of dying having never remarried or being in a relationship where the spouse does want a temple marriage.

 
 
 
 
5 hours ago, Vort said:

But I suspect that trying to preserve a foundering marriage because you're afraid that the sealing dissolution will separate you from your children is an effort based on a faulty understanding.

You miss understand me. The marriage is already dissolved. There is no keeping a foundering relationship together for anyone's sake. I would submit that no one here as a perfect understanding of what is to come or even a reasonably good understanding. My comments are based on observations of General Authorities and their reluctance to break a covenant that was sealed in the temple. Why are they reluctant? What do they understand the sealing to mean between husband and wife and children?

Well, I, for one, don't know. But if they are reluctant then so am I.

Let's take a situation where a man was sealed to his wife and had several children born in the covenant. The wife divorces the husband in civil court for irreconcilable differences. At this point, there is no change in the eternal sealing, but of course, the wife would really like to see that disappear. She doesn't want to be sealed to the jerk who made her life miserable. That's understandable but, without good reason, the brethren won't dissolve the sealing.

Correct me if I'm wrong about any of that so far, where the sealing is concerned and the church's reaction to divorce.

Now the husband remarries and finds himself in an equally precarious marriage but the new wife won't marry him in the temple because he is still sealed to the first wife. Now he's in double jeopardy. If he dissolves the first marriage, there is a reasonable concern that the sealing to his new wife will never happen. She has already given every indication that being sealed to him isn't really that important nor even desirable, apparently. So, if he cuts ties with the old sealing, he destroys the sealing connection he as with his children (the question that your statement raised) and has no prospect it seems, without divorce, of obtaining an eternal relationship, possibly no connection (this is, of course, based on limited understanding of how all this works).

If I was in this man's shoes, I wouldn't cut the connection with one when the prospects of a new connection are so uncertain and ultimately be left with nothing but frustrating effort.

On that note, It seems that effort is all that is really necessary. I don't think that God will condemn anyone who tried and failed and He certainly won't judge anyone who just didn't know. This life, in my opinion, is a place where we learn and we often learn from our failures and our mistakes. So a person who fails to get married in this life may not be forever without an eternal companion. It is a shame that our culture pressures us into a situation where it is marriage or bust and treats the unmarried as second class citizens because they haven't reached the pinnacle of exaltation... yet.

But this is all speculation. Your observation just raised some concerns with me. You answered my question. I believe, based on my limited understanding, it is best to keep what we have with the understanding that circumstances that are outside of our control will be managed by someone who has a greater degree of control.

Edited by brotherofJared
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I wasn't making an argument. I was asking for clarification. Is it your understanding that if the parents receive a temple divorce, the children are no longer sealed to anyone?

No. My understanding is that, once born in the covenant (or sealed to parents  which is the same thing as being BIC), the child is under the protection of the covenant even if the covenant ceases to exist. But don't ask me to explain how that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that children BIC are considered to be sealed to their father and mother individually, in the same manner as children who were not BIC are sealed to parents individually later in the Temple. So even if the marriage covenant ends, the children who were BIC are still considered sealed to both parents.

I know that I don't fully understand the meaning of "being sealed" yet. Technically I am sealed to six women right now - my mother, my wife, and my four daughters, as well as to three men - my father, and my two sons. I often ponder this wonderful doctrine and one day hope to understand all the blessings associated with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it appears that no one understands it well enough to explain it.

I understand the marriage covenant. That's pretty straight forward. I believe being born in the covenant entitles the children to the same blessings that the parents have through the parents, so I assume that being sealed does the same thing in that regard. A temple marriage should be unbroken and dependable. I believe it is the ideal model of what a family should have... a father and mother who works together for the salvation of their children as well as their own. But the sealing is also genealogical, connecting the family of Adam to the family of God, parents to children down through all the generations of time. This latter sealing cannot be broken even by divorce. It is the same as blood relations. The natural parents of a child will always be the parents of that child regardless of whether or not they stay married. Divorce makes this extremely complicated and thus it is not ideal. For example, I have two stepchildren. I am not biologically related to either even though they refer to me as one of their parents. Having them sealed to me would effectively make me their parent spiritually which, I'm guessing, is as effective as a biological connection.

My confusion and concern was about what happens when that spiritual connection is broken between husband and wife. From my statement, it appears that it would be the same as a biological connection between natural parents and children after divorce. They are both still the parents of the children even though the parents are not together. That being said, the children could obtain a new set of spiritual parents, if, for example, the wife married another man in the temple and had the children sealed to them. That would be discomforting.

This, of course, complicates matters even more. I think it best to follow Pres Oaks' recommendation that we lean not unto our own understanding. For now, I'm happy with inaction pending further light and knowledge. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2019 at 6:36 PM, Harrison said:

Hello, @Traveler, Mark Harrison here. I'm wondering whether your question about why the Celestial Kingdom is not called the Celestial Democracy or Celestial Republic was offered tongue-in-cheek. If so that would render the rest of my remark moot. But if you meant what you wrote, then I would like to ask you what 'Kingdom' means to you in the context of the doctrine. I suppose the answer to your question rests there, right? 

Greetings Brother Harrison.  Though my mentioning and questions of the Celestial Kingdom are somewhat tongue-in-cheek; it is more directed at the ignorance of Near Eastern Suzerain - Vassal Law and Treaties (or covenants) and how this was understood anciently in both Old Testament and New Testament Biblical texts and other texts of that era. Especially in understanding the Father as the Supreme Suzerain and Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son or "heir" and Vassal of the Father.  In addition that those that "inherit" Celestial "Glory" become joint heirs with Christ.  Thus, through covenant those of Celestial Glory are Vassals rather than subjects within the kingdom.  Much of this ancient understanding was lost at the dawn and during the "Dark Ages" where the divine right of Kings removed the understanding of Suzerain - Vassals covenant relationships and overturned freedoms and liberties.   In short there is a gross misunderstanding of both the fall of man from when he was given "dominion" over the whole earth and was "created" in the image and likeness of the Suzerain or Elohim.

The reality is that we are only truly free and liberated under such a treaty or covenant and that we are not as free in either a democracy or republic type of Governments - which I believe to be more inline with the Terrestrial or Telestial "Glories". 

Quote

This would be an interesting topic if we could chat face-to-face. I think such a chat must needs explore speculations with regards to such questions as whether the Universe as we theorize it today includes the Celestial Kingdom, or whether it (the Universe) is tucked away in some tiny corner of the Celestial Kingdom. We could talk about whether its isotropic nature is the final word, or merely all we have to work with at present (science survives, does it not, on the assumption that what we "know" is always subject to revision).  And then there's that pesky fact that we stand on ground likely to shake us if we make too firm a habit of exploring our faith by resorting to pages from a current science book.  Nevertheless, I appreciate your metaphor. It encourages me to try to make choices that would help me situate myself on the better side of the sword. Thanks for giving me food for thought.

All my best to you, Sir.  

We are told that all "things" denote and testify that there is a G-d.  Therefore, I suspect that those that do not understand the universe do not understand G-d and vice versa.  Also that the better we understand the universe the better we will understand G-d and vice versa - meaning that the better we understand G-d we will better understand the universe (or whatever part of it we think we observe).   The first witness of intelligence is order.  By definition, the scientific  definition of intelligence as the ability to "learn" and modify behavior.  I believe this conforms to modern revelation that intelligence is the light of truth - which I believe implies both learning and power to conform to and take advantage of  or use "order".   I also do not believe it to be any more "difficult" to discern truth from scientific "books" than it is to discern the truth from ancient (or modern) divinely given scriptures.  Because G-d is a G-d of truth and light - all truth is of G-d -- be it revealed through prophets and their legacy scripture or revealed through science and empirical evidence.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What is on my mind is this: A married couple receive the gospel after death and wish to receive the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. But, from certain scriptures, I feel someone might say to the vast majority of couples - your desires are good,  but, you cannot be sealed together, despite your desire to receive the gospel and the marriage covenant, and the performance of the ordinance by proxies on the earth - because, according to your works in the flesh, both of you only qualify for an inheritance in the terrestial kingdom,  which kingdom consists of saved individuals in the single state and not the married state.

If the above were to be the case, as far as I understand, most of the human race would be cut off from the people, I mean that people in the next life connected to each other by sealings, all the way back to Adam.

On the one hand, we preach or offer the hope, that people who accept the gospel including the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, in the next life, will be exalted, yet on the other hand, notwithstanding, there is also the thought that few will qualify for exaltation.

I do wonder, as others do as well I'm sure,  that when the earth becomes a celestial world, that there are three degrees within it.  That this world is divided into three kingdoms.  And if that were true, it might be easier to figure things out .

Edited by richard7900
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share