Sealing to wife and family Q

[Fether]

Am I sealed to my wife in the same way I am sealed to my children and parents?

This question arose as I pondered on the topic of plural marriage and the supposed “polyandry” that existed in the early church. I wondered if our strict view of how we see sealing today is due to us Culturally tying a Traditional marriage Standard to sealing a.

for example, I am sealed to my wife and my whole family. Would there be much of a difference between me being sealed to my son or father and Joseph being sealed to another man’s wife who he never intended on sleeping with?

I would be interested in seeing the wording used in the sealings used between him and his Wives and him and the women he never had as a wife, yet was sealed to.

Edited August 28, 2020 by Fether

[Fether]

Interesting side note that I just learned here:

In the early church, men were often sealed to other men as well. It was reserved for just men to women.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Why_were_men_sealed_to_other_men_during_the_early_days_of_the_Church%3F

But it doesn’t appear that there were marriage sealings, family sealings, and sealings of adoption. Not sure how much this was all realized during the early years of the church though.

Again, I would be interested to see the wording used in such sealings. Anyone know of any sources that would have those written down?

Edited August 28, 2020 by Fether

[Connie]

I don't have an answer to your question, but here's a church source that has a little section about adoption sealings and how Wilford Woodruff ended them. I remember when I first learned about these sealings that were so common and Woodruff's revelation ending them. It's always been interesting to me.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/sealing?lang=eng

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Am I sealed to my wife in the same way I am sealed to my children and parents?

This question arose as I pondered on the topic of plural marriage and the supposed “polyandry” that existed in the early church. I wondered if our strict view of how we see sealing today is due to us Culturally tying a Traditional marriage Standard to sealing a.

for example, I am sealed to my wife and my whole family. Would there be much of a difference between me being sealed to my son or father and Joseph being sealed to another man’s wife who he never intended on sleeping with?

I would be interested in seeing the wording used in the sealings used between him and his Wives and him and the women he never had as a wife, yet was sealed to.

My take on sealings is that we are all sealed to Christ as touched upon in the New Testament. This is expanded upon in the Restoration with the ordinances that legitimize various relationships that are founded in Christ. After all, we are all about the unity of the saints in Christ.

The most familiar and common relationships seem to be generational in nature: husband-wife, child-parent, both natural and adoptive. Others that seem to have been used in the past are relational in nature: friends, employers ("houses"), some priesthood or other organizational unit approved within the kingdom.

So sealing multiple women to a man, and man-man or servant to employer sealing certainly needn't imply a marital union, except in the specific case of plural marriage.

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Am I sealed to my wife in the same way I am sealed to my children and parents?

This question arose as I pondered on the topic of plural marriage and the supposed “polyandry” that existed in the early church. I wondered if our strict view of how we see sealing today is due to us Culturally tying a Traditional marriage Standard to sealing a.

for example, I am sealed to my wife and my whole family. Would there be much of a difference between me being sealed to my son or father and Joseph being sealed to another man’s wife who he never intended on sleeping with?

I would be interested in seeing the wording used in the sealings used between him and his Wives and him and the women he never had as a wife, yet was sealed to.

Our understanding of the Gospel continues to grow over time, both as individuals and as a collective church. 

In the early days, sealings were more generally applied to all sorts of bonds between people -- family or not.  They were all sorts of bonds between people.   As time passed, especially into the Woodruff era, our understanding became more that sealings were for families, evolving into what we have today.   

As to what's most correct: during Joseph Smith's day they did what they best knew how with the knowledge they have - and that was the best they had.  And today, we should do the best with what we have and seal families because that's what we know the sealing power is for.   

Edited August 28, 2020 by Jane_Doe

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Interesting side note that I just learned here:

In the early church, men were often sealed to other men as well. It was reserved for just men to women.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Why_were_men_sealed_to_other_men_during_the_early_days_of_the_Church%3F

But it doesn’t appear that there were marriage sealings, family sealings, and sealings of adoption. Not sure how much this was all realized during the early years of the church though.

Again, I would be interested to see the wording used in such sealings. Anyone know of any sources that would have those written down?

It is my impression that "sealings" currently being performed are an initial ordinance to be completed later and that cannot be completed later unless initially performed here in mortality by individuals or their proxy.    This is the primary purpose for the melimeanium.   The other very important element is to understand that a sealing is an ordinance that is directly associated with a covenant.  Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants is, in my mind the best explanation of sealing:

Quote

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to the anew and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

9 Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?

10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?

....

12 I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.

13 And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.

14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

 As I understand this new and everlasting covenant with G-d is the key to Celestial Glory and being a citizen of the Celestial Kingdom.  It is the Law by which all things Celestial are governed and "jointly" owned and maintained - making all such stuff - "Eternal".  I am inclined to believe that all other things will follow what is observed in science as the second law of thermodynamics which is in essence what we understand in religion as being "damned".  It is my personal belief that all things that are not Celestial are therefore damned and must rely on the power and glory of that which is Celestial to continue into eternity.   I speculate that this is why Satan must obey G-d.  Also why the universe is maintained by the power of the Priesthood.

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, Fether said:

Am I sealed to my wife in the same way I am sealed to my children and parents?

This question arose as I pondered on the topic of plural marriage and the supposed “polyandry” that existed in the early church. I wondered if our strict view of how we see sealing today is due to us Culturally tying a Traditional marriage Standard to sealing a.

for example, I am sealed to my wife and my whole family. Would there be much of a difference between me being sealed to my son or father and Joseph being sealed to another man’s wife who he never intended on sleeping with?

I would be interested in seeing the wording used in the sealings used between him and his Wives and him and the women he never had as a wife, yet was sealed to.

Given the traditional sacredness/secrecy of the text of temple rituals generally, I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable getting into discussions where either the current or past variants of those rituals were parsed in detail.

Generally speaking, though:  the parent-child sealing makes the child an heir to the Abrahamic covenant, through the intermediary of the parents.  The spousal sealing binds two heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant as partners to each other, and sets them up as legators of the legacy of the Abrahamic Covenant to their future offspring (whether those offspring come in this life or the next).  In other words:  the spousal sealing is a peer relationship of functional equals united as partners in a common task; whereas the parent-child sealing is a hierarchal relationship between a parent and a child, leader and a follower, an instructor and a student, a testator and an heir, a grantor and a grantee.

That’s one reason why you can’t  (for example) just take the old male-male “adoptive” sealings and overlay/adapt that paradigm onto modern gay sealings.  To do so in a theologically accurate way would be to impute a “master-and-servant”, “dominant-and-submissive” dynamic to gay marriages that I daresay most gay couples would find tremendously insulting.

It’s also why LDS leaders (I think in the early 20th century), based on reports that Joseph Smith had offered “sealing” to Jane Manning, performed an awkward (and never-again-used, AFAIK) “sealed as a servant” ordinance between the two.  Given the standards of the day, they just couldn’t fathom the possibility that Joseph might propose such an exalted, egalitarian, marital relationship with a black woman.

Edited August 28, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

Spousal sealings and parent to children sealings are different things.  Sealings of adoptions (which were common previously in the church) normally fall under the parameters of the Parent-Children sealings.

There are also marriages that are for eternity rather than for time.  Joseph Smith is supposed to have had many of these, where woman married to men in this life were for time only, but in the afterlife were sealed to Joseph Smith.

The reason this is possible, or supposed to be possible is the claim that whatever is sealed here on earth is sealed in heaven.  Thus the authority to seal people together is effective here on earth and HEAVEN UNLESS (and this is a BIG  one) it is either against the wishes of the Lord, OR it is abused in a progressively lax manner.

A prime example of this being lost is seen among the Early Church and the apostasy.  The apostles (and thus what we assume were the keys) were killed.  We know that the apostles assigned others to their positions, or elected others, though we do not know who they were.  IF we take the Catholic's claims of authority as authentic, we also know they lost that authority.  One reason is the marriage or multiple marriages at times of multiple spouses...in a way where multiple men may be married to the same woman, or vice versa.  We KNOW that a woman cannot be sealed to more than one man...so why perform such a thing?  (for early church procedures, this was probably due to politics, where a woman's husband died and she was a rich widow...thus the political and monetary effects of connecting her to someone else was beneficial, especially if done on heaven and earth..though for two men get problematic).

In our dispensation the early church this was mostly avoided.  They normally, or at least originally ensured a woman was ONLY sealed to one man.  There were exception to this.  If she married again and the next man's priesthood authority was higher than her previous husband's, and she chose to be married to the one with the higher authority, then no divorce was needed (temple) and she was sealed to the second husband.  Otherwise, a temple divorce would be needed as what is bound in heaven can only be unbound or undone by one who has the same authority to declare it such.

Most of the time, whoever the woman was married to first, was the husband she was sealed to in the temple.  This kept things orderly.  The question arose, however, about if a woman had been divorced and remarried or was unhappily married.  Thus, recently (in my lifetime) they have started to seal a woman who is dead to all the husbands that she was ever married to with the reasoning that they can clear it up in the hereafter, OR the idea (and this is where it gets questionable in my mind, as it seems abusing the power rather than following exactly the intent of the matter) that as if something is done against the wishes of the Lord it will not be approved, so why even bother trying to keep things in order as only the approved one counts anyways.

This has a deleterious effect in marriages in the church (in my opinion).  Men are reluctant to marry a divorced woman.  After all, even if she gets a temple divorce currently, she WILL be sealed to her ex-husband in the afterlife which makes it more questionable on who is actually sealed to her.  If one has a question of if they are sealed or not, or a guarantee of being sealed...guess which one many men will chose instead?  I suppose it is good for those woman who have always been single as their odds of marriage go up the older they get, while in previous times this was not necessarily so...however...for those who get divorced at times it makes them feel like pariah's among the the dating circles of the church.

I have had the unfortunate circumstance to find myself having these types of discussions with many a worthy lady whose only thing in life that made her less wanted by members of the opposite gender was that she was previously married and now divorced...and the hardships they felt this brought them in feeling equal to their peers in the church.  Many of them were VERY accomplished and wonderful people, but the stigma that was held over them saddened me greatly.

This is also the reason that me and my wife (hopefully, if I go first she does this, as I do not want to be superseded) have an agreement that she will never remarry if I die.  We do not want such confusions and horrific things to affect our thoughts of the future or doubt about the eternities.

The LORD never meant for confusion to be sown in his house, and in the hereafter, you will not have multiple men sealed to one woman who is in turn one of many wives sealed to one man.  It is not a network of woman sealed in eternal marriages to multiple partners.   It is not a place of chaos, but I can understand how some who see what the church currently is doing with sealings can be confused about the differences between partners being sealed together vs. that of children to parents.

The bonds between husband and wife that extend from this life into the next and it is a singular marriage between them.  It is true that a man may be part of several marriages to different women, but a woman is ONLY sealed or party to one marriage to one husband.  It is a sealing bond between the two that unites them in a parental relationship to have children with each other in this life and eternally.

Children on the otherhand are sealed to their parents and through that their lineage tracing back to Abraham, and from there back to Adam.  Through this they have the blessings of covenants made to Adam, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, and the Children of Israel.  Brigham Young inferred that unless we have these sealing bonds, we are in danger of losing those blessings which are essential for are salvation and exaltation.

[Connie]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Given the traditional sacredness/secrecy of the text of temple rituals generally, I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable getting into discussions where either the current or past variants of those rituals were parsed in detail.

Generally speaking, though:  the parent-child sealing makes the child an heir to the Abrahamic covenant, through the intermediary of the parents.  The spousal sealing binds two heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant as partners to each other, and sets them up as legators of the legacy of the Abrahamic Covenant to their future offspring (whether those offspring come in this life or the next).  In other words:  the spousal sealing is a peer relationship of functional equals united as partners in a common task; whereas the parent-child sealing is a hierarchal relationship between a parent and a child, leader and a follower, an instructor and a student, a testator and an heir, a grantor and a grantee.

That’s one reason why you can’t  (for example) just take the old male-male “adoptive” sealings and overlay/adapt that paradigm onto modern gay sealings.  To do so in a theologically accurate way would be to impute a “master-and-servant”, “dominant-and-submissive” dynamic to gay marriages that I daresay most gay couples would find tremendously insulting.

It’s also why LDS leaders (I think in the early 20th century), based on reports that Joseph Smith had offered “sealing” to Jane Manning, performed an awkward (and never-again-used, AFAIK) “sealed as a servant” ordinance between the two.  Given the standards of the day, they just couldn’t fathom the possibility that Joseph might propose such an exalted, egalitarian, marital relationship with a black woman.

That's such a lawyer way of putting it. I love it! 😀

[Fether]

Am I sealed to my brother directly? Or am I sealed to him through my parents tie?

[Vort]

Just now, Fether said:

Am I sealed to my brother directly? Or am I sealed to him through my parents tie?

• Were you born within his covenant?
• Did you ever join hands with him over an altar and receive a pronunciation of sealing from an authorized sealer?

if the answer to either question is "yes", then you are sealed directly to him. Otherwise, you are not.

[NeuroTypical]

The more I learn about the nature of sealings, the less surprised I am to find the lack of offspring from Joseph and any wife other than Emma.

[Fether]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

The more I learn about the nature of sealings, the less surprised I am to find the lack of offspring from Joseph and any wife other than Emma.

Please do explain

[NeuroTypical]

One longstanding criticism of Joseph, was he instituted polygamy in order to gain sexual access to lots of women.  Nobody can find any children he fathered from anyone but Emma.  I think ten years ago or so, someone who thought they were descended from Joseph and another wife, found out through DNA science that nope, Joseph wasn't the father. 

1800's Frontier America wasn't exactly full of contraception.  Joseph was obviously fertile, and so were many/most of the women to which he was sealed.  There are zero stories (I don't think I've even heard a rumor or a baseless criticism) of abortion.  The history of sealing parents to kids, the early sealings of men to other men, or women who had died being sealed to Joseph after death, coupled with a lack of provable descendants, lends evidence to the notion that sometimes, sealings were about the eternities, not a sexual union.

Edited August 30, 2020 by NeuroTypical

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

One longstanding criticism of Joseph, was he instituted polygamy in order to gain sexual access to lots of women.  Nobody can find any children he fathered from anyone but Emma.  I think ten years ago or so, someone who thought they were descended from Joseph and another wife, found out through DNA science that nope, Joseph wasn't the father. 

1800's Frontier America wasn't exactly full of contraception.  Joseph was obviously fertile, and so were many/most of the women to which he was sealed.  There are zero stories (I don't think I've even heard a rumor or a baseless criticism) of abortion.  The history of sealing parents to kids, the early sealings of men to other men, or women who had died being sealed to Joseph after death, coupled with a lack of provable descendants, lends evidence to the notion that sometimes, sealings were about the eternities, not a sexual union.

I've heard the rumors and accusations, but I think they are baseless still the same.  In addition, they are not worth bringing up at this time in general.

Despite those, I think the fact that we have no DNA evidence of any children ever shown to have occurred is pretty strong evidence in and of itself.  There are so many that would leap at the chance to tear the church down over that if it could be found, I think there have been many who have eagerly looked for it ever since DNA evidence became something one could utilize.

[classylady]

On 8/28/2020 at 10:33 AM, JohnsonJones said:

 

This has a deleterious effect in marriages in the church (in my opinion).  Men are reluctant to marry a divorced woman.  After all, even if she gets a temple divorce currently, she WILL be sealed to her ex-husband in the afterlife which makes it more questionable on who is actually sealed to her.  If one has a question of if they are sealed or not, or a guarantee of being sealed...guess which one many men will chose instead?  I suppose it is good for those woman who have always been single as their odds of marriage go up the older they get, while in previous times this was not necessarily so...however...for those who get divorced at times it makes them feel like pariah's among the the dating circles of the church.

 

 

 

JohnsonJones, my understanding is that if a woman gets a sealing cancellation she is no longer sealed to her ex-husband. If you mean a civil divorce without a sealing cancellation, then yes, I suppose she is still technically sealed to him. If it remains that way until the next life, I believe he/she would be given the option if they want to remain together through the eternities. There’s usually a good reason for  divorce. Most likely one or both of them do not want to be married to each other. Even though Heavenly Father frowns on divorce, it is allowed because we are imperfect people. I don’t believe anyone is going to be forced to be with an ex, if they don’t want it. Even, once we have reached our perfected state, and have celestial love for all, does not mean we lose our option to choose.

[laronius]

6 hours ago, classylady said:

Even, once we have reached our perfected state, and have celestial love for all, does not mean we lose our option to choose.

I'm curious to know what would be your deciding factor or factors when choosing between two perfect spouses.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

I'm curious to know what would be your deciding factor or factors when choosing between two perfect spouses.

"Is one of them female?"

[Fether]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

I'm curious to know what would be your deciding factor or factors when choosing between two perfect spouses.

Personality.

The perfecting of the saints does not mean some Whovian Cyborg assimilation of human kind. We will all still be unique and have our personalities.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Fether

[laronius]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

"Is one of them female?"

I don't know about you Vort but them being a member of the opposite sex is kind of a requirement for "perfect" spouse in my book. 😀

[laronius]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

Personality

I'm glad you brought this up. I guess it depends on how we define perfect in the context of personality. Does it include being perfectly humorous, perfectly interesting to listen to, perfectly interested in listening to us, perfectly serious or playful when necessary, etc? Or can these things still vary between "perfect" individuals?

[Fether]

6 hours ago, laronius said:

I'm glad you brought this up. I guess it depends on how we define perfect in the context of personality. Does it include being perfectly humorous, perfectly interesting to listen to, perfectly interested in listening to us, perfectly serious or playful when necessary, etc? Or can these things still vary between "perfect" individuals?

We can be perfect in all those ways, but still be different. 
 

For example: I come home from work and my son is so happy to see me. I can

a) run to him and give him a big hug and tell him I love him.

b) run to him, throw him into the air and tell him I love him.

c) playfully tackle him and tell him I love him.

 

all three are different interaction And all are perfect for the scenario

[JohnsonJones]

17 hours ago, classylady said:

JohnsonJones, my understanding is that if a woman gets a sealing cancellation she is no longer sealed to her ex-husband. If you mean a civil divorce without a sealing cancellation, then yes, I suppose she is still technically sealed to him. If it remains that way until the next life, I believe he/she would be given the option if they want to remain together through the eternities. There’s usually a good reason for  divorce. Most likely one or both of them do not want to be married to each other. Even though Heavenly Father frowns on divorce, it is allowed because we are imperfect people. I don’t believe anyone is going to be forced to be with an ex, if they don’t want it. Even, once we have reached our perfected state, and have celestial love for all, does not mean we lose our option to choose.

It was not always like this, but a change occurred...I think in the late 90s, from what I understand.

ALL the men that a woman married in this life, once all parties are deceased, are sealed to her and all the women they have been married to are sealed to them.  It has led to some very strange ideas from members that I've discussed this with. 

I'm not going into these things here (though at least one idea expressed in this thread by another touches upon this subject, or one of the unique ideas that some members have arrived upon because this practice occurs today) as they do not spiritually uplift me (actually kind of depress me to think about them much, which is probably where some concerns of mine come from at moments).

The idea that has been said to me about this, concerning this change, is a complete 180 degrees from what it used to be.  It used to be thought that a woman who was sealed to her husband (after all parties are deceased) would only be sealed to one husband.  Normally this was the husband she was either sealed to at the time of death, or if no sealing, the first husband if there were no records otherwise, or if preference was given (for example, a divorce rather then being widowed), sometimes who she was married to upon death.  If there were problems and discrepancies, it would be cleared up in the millennium.  The thought was that there were less mistakes when done this way and order was kept in the records. 

Originally, it was common that women would outlive their husbands and remarry.  It was understood that these remarriages would not be ever for eternity, but temporal...thus no one had a problem with them or with their wives remarrying after their death (if they only knew what was coming later on...in our day).

Today, divorce is common...perhaps more common than widows remarrying.  Perhaps this is the cause for the changes in perspective.  Instead of simply leaving them married to the first husband, or whoever they were sealed to upon the death of all the involved parties, all members of all marriages are sealed together after death. 

The idea now is that the ordinance is done and if there are mistakes...the Lord will only approve of the ones that will be valid and the entire mess, if there is any, will be cleared up in the millennium. 

Edited September 5, 2020 by JohnsonJones

[laronius]

16 hours ago, Fether said:

We can be perfect in all those ways, but still be different. 
 

For example: I come home from work and my son is so happy to see me. I can

a) run to him and give him a big hug and tell him I love him.

b) run to him, throw him into the air and tell him I love him.

c) playfully tackle him and tell him I love him.

 

all three are different interaction And all are perfect for the scenario

What you are describing sounds like to me to be different manifestations of the same type of personality or quality. But as I've thought about this question a little more I am starting to shift my thinking about something. While I still believe we can ultimately become perfect in many ways regarding our qualities I am wondering if there are not some things for which there is no "perfect" standard. Let's take humor for example. Can we really say someone with a dry sense of humor is better or worse than someone who loves knock knock jokes? I guess someone could develop both but that doesn't mean they don't have a preference. Same thing with interests. While we can become knowledgeable in all things I we can still prefer to spend time with some aspect of creation over another. So I guess we need to differentiate between ability and preference as well as things for which there is a wrong and right and where there isn't. Perhaps that is where personality is manifested by perfect beings.

[Fether]

1 minute ago, laronius said:

What you are describing sounds like to me to be different manifestations of the same type of personality or quality. But as I've thought about this question a little more I am starting to shift my thinking about something. While I still believe we can ultimately become perfect in many ways regarding our qualities I am wondering if there are not some things for which there is no "perfect" standard. Let's take humor for example. Can we really say someone with a dry sense of humor is better or worse than someone who loves knock knock jokes? I guess someone could develop both but that doesn't mean they don't have a preference. Same thing with interests. While we can become knowledgeable in all things I we can still prefer to spend time with some aspect of creation over another. So I guess we need to differentiate between ability and preference as well as things for which there is a wrong and right and where there isn't. Perhaps that is where personality is manifested by perfect beings.

The only “perfection” to be worried about is that which has to do with the commandments and becoming a Christlike. My ability to dunk a basketball won’t effect my salvation. 
 

Side note: as friend of my has a theory for the reason why most dads use dad jokes. We inherited The love for that humor from our Heavenly Father