Jump to content

Sealed... for Time and for All Eternity


Mortal Man

Recommended Posts

Today in Gospel Doctrine class we learned about the blessings of marriage and the importance of being faithful to your spouse.

About halfway through the lesson, the sister behind me spoke up about how essential it was for husbands to put their wives before everything else; e.g., football, work etc.

At this point it dawned on me that the main point of our lesson was ironically quite opposite to the main point of Section 132.

The reading assignment from the study guide is 132:1-4 & 132:4-33.

Around 132:28 things start to get interesting...

28 I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was.

Sounds great, I can't want to find out what "the law" is.

29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.

Cool, I'd like to get in on that.

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loinsâ??from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Josephâ??which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

Excellent, I especially like the "seashore" part.

31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

Me too? Glad to hear it.

32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

Ok, I'm all on board with this. Just tell me what the law is and we're good to go.

33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

Well, we certainly wouldn't want that to happen.

So what is this law that's so essential to our exaltation?

How can we be sure to follow it so as not to miss out on the seashore stuff?

Unfortunately, we'll never find out because the study guide ends at verse 33.

Had we been allowed to continue on to verse 34, we would have found out what the law is.

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

Now I realize that it's in vogue on this board to criticize critics for criticizing the manual, but in this case the manual invites criticism.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

We have a wind-up without a pitch, a joke without a punchline, a play with no final act.

We are led to the pond but not allowed to drink.

I was just about to mention Hagar to the sister with the shrill voice behind me, when it occured to me that perhaps she was our ward's version of Emma. Maybe it was a similar tone of voice that prompted Joseph's revelation in the first place.

As I listened to the rest of our lesson on fidelity, and tried to resist the urge to feign an epileptic seizure, I found my mind wandering off to consiglieri's classroom and imagining all of the wonderful happenings that must be going on there. These imaginings gave me renewed spirit and the fortitude to endure to the end.

So, consig buddy. Pleeeeease tell me that you read verse 34 in class.

As the man who can eat 50 eggs, please throw me a bone here.

Link to comment

Just to play you-know-who's advocate here, what if the law is "multiply and replenish the earth". Sarah couldn't do that which is why she gave Hagar, because she was barren.

For her faithfulness in allowing Abraham to fulfill the law (the prime directive given to Adam and Eve), Sarah was blessed with a son.

I'm not opposed to plural marriage being the law but this just popped into my mind as I was reading your post, Mortal Man.

Link to comment

Just to play you-know-who's advocate here, what if the law is "multiply and replenish the earth". Sarah couldn't do that which is why she gave Hagar, because she was barren.

For her faithfulness in allowing Abraham to fulfill the law (the prime directive given to Adam and Eve), Sarah was blessed with a son.

I'm not opposed to plural marriage being the law but this just popped into my mind as I was reading your post, Mortal Man.

And here I thought it was her lack of faith that led her to giving Abraham her handmaiden.

Link to comment

Just to play you-know-who's advocate here, what if the law is "multiply and replenish the earth". Sarah couldn't do that which is why she gave Hagar, because she was barren.

For her faithfulness in allowing Abraham to fulfill the law (the prime directive given to Adam and Eve), Sarah was blessed with a son.

I'm not opposed to plural marriage being the law but this just popped into my mind as I was reading your post, Mortal Man.

These excerpts from a revelation given to Pres. John Taylor on June 26, 1882 help clarify what is meant by "my law" I think:

This law is a Celestial law and pertains to a Celestial Kingdom.

It is a new and everlasting covenant, and appertains to thrones,

principalities, powers, dominions, and eternal increase in the Celestial

Kingdom of God.

You are not now sent to proclaim this principle to the United States,

nor the world; nor to urge it upon them.

...

Ye are my spokesmen, I am your God; and as I have before said, I now again say,

Henceforth do as I shall command you.

Concerning the course taken by the United States, they have a right

to reject this law themselves; as they have a right to reject the Gospel; but

it is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, which is the supreme law

of the land, for them to prohibit you from obeying it.

Therefore, abide in my law which I have revealed unto you, saith the

Lord God, and contend for your rights by every legal and constitutional method

and in accordance with the institutions, laws, and Constitution of the United

States.

Kamenraider I have seen you corrected about this quote many times. If you use this revelation one more time without a source and disclaimer about its authenticity you will have a very long vacation from this board. Mod

Link to comment

So what is this law that's so essential to our exaltation?

The law is clearly stated in verse 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.

It's talking about being sealed. Plural marriage is not a requirement for sealing except where it is specifically commanded. Abraham was justified by the law but the law is the sealing covenant which justified his taking more than one wife. We are not all commanded to live the law of plural marriage and certainly now it is in fact a commandment not to (at least for the living).

Link to comment
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.

Those are the conditions of the law, not the law itself. The law was the new and everlasting covenant of polygamy.

Index summary:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501â??507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831. (the insertion of this date to cover Joseph's Fanny tail)

1â??6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7â??14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15â??20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21â??25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives; 26â??27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28â??39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages; 40â??47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48â??50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51â??57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58â??66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.

Link to comment

Those are the conditions of the law, not the law itself.

No, the law is the sealing of which the marriage covenant is part. Even the quote you gave doesn't say what you want it to say. The statement "including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives" separates marriage and includes plural wives and says nothing about plural marriage being a requirement of the covenant. The law of plural marriage is not practiced today. If plural marriage is a requirement then all of us living and in good standing in the church since the Proclamation do not qualify for exaltation (except in cases of re-marriage when a spouse has died). Nor do all those sealed prior to the proclamation who did not practice plural marriage.

"Celestial marriage--that is, marriage for time and eternity--and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonomous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages."

Heber J. Grant

Anthony W. Ivins,

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

James R. Clark, Messages Of The First Presidency, 5:329.

Link to comment

I believe we were commanded to be married and for a time plural marriage was commanded of some, but never of all. It is said that only 20-30% of the Church were living polygamous marriage back when it was something some were expected to do. If plural marriage was a commandment, wouldn't all have been commanded instead of just the few asked to do so by the Church? Also if I recall correctly, you couldn't decide on your own to be involved in plural marriage, but instead it was asked of you by the higher ups.

God would not set something up as a law and then only ask a few to participate. Instead the law is the sealing (marriage) and of some it is plural marriage as well.

Link to comment

kamenraider:

Sure thing.

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land."

Link to comment

As I listened to the rest of our lesson on fidelity, and tried to resist the urge to feign an epileptic seizure, I found my mind wandering off to consiglieri's classroom and imagining all of the wonderful happenings that must be going on there. These imaginings gave me renewed spirit and the fortitude to endure to the end.

So, consig buddy. Pleeeeease tell me that you read verse 34 in class.

As the man who can eat 50 eggs, please throw me a bone here.

You rang?

Actually, I'm two lessons behind because I spent extra lessons on the Missouri persecutions and section 76.

We covered Liberty Jail yesterday, and I got to swear in class, saying "damned" no less than three times when quoting General Wilson's Halloween discussion with Lyman Wight. (I am particularly proud of being able to swear in Sunday school and get away with it.)

But rest assured, when we get to section 132, we will not balk at covering verse 34, and I will likely spend a little time with verse 19, as well, which seems to contain a segment of the words used in the ordinance of the second endowment.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

You rang?

Actually, I'm two lessons behind because I spent extra lessons on the Missouri persecutions and section 76.

We covered Liberty Jail yesterday, and I got to swear in class, saying "damned" no less than three times when quoting General Wilson's Halloween discussion with Lyman Wight. (I am particularly proud of being able to swear in Sunday school and get away with it.)

"Damned" is not a swear word in Australia and neither is "Hell". Until I learned this little fact I was a bit puzzled as to why my fellow missionaries were such potty mouths.

But rest assured, when we get to section 132, we will not balk at covering verse 34, and I will likely spend a little time with verse 19, as well, which seems to contain a segment of the words used in the ordinance of the second endowment.

:P

I knew I could count on you to break down the stone walls of the study guide.

Perhaps you could entitle your lesson, "From Hagar to Fanny: Why the Lord demands polygyny from his servants."

At any rate, I eagerly await your report.

Link to comment

But rest assured, when we get to section 132, we will not balk at covering verse 34, and I will likely spend a little time with verse 19, as well, which seems to contain a segment of the words used in the ordinance of the second endowment.

So are you saying you agree with mortal man that it did mean that or that it still means that or do you not agree with mortal man. Inquiring minds want to know if you think that plural marriage is the law that is spoken about.

Link to comment

So are you saying you agree with mortal man that it did mean that or that it still means that or do you not agree with mortal man. Inquiring minds want to know if you think that plural marriage is the law that is spoken about.

I will tell you that I haven't gone back over section 132 in a while, but my recollection is that it seems to deal squarely with the issue of plural marriage, and that it is only post-Manifesto Mormons who try to interpret it to apply solely to eternal marriage to one spouse.

I am happy to be corrected on that, though.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

My Gospel Doctrine teacher spent the first few minutes of class discussing polygamy, wherein we learned that Joseph absolutely didn't practice polygamy until 1842 (even though he had learned about it much earlier), polygamy was never practiced without the consent and knowledge of the first wife (so men couldn't just bring home someone and surprise her), and early Church leaders were not willing participants under any circumstances (told story of sword-wielding angel).

Go figure.

:P

Link to comment

I will tell you that I haven't gone back over section 132 in a while, but my recollection is that it seems to deal squarely with the issue of plural marriage, and that it is only post-Manifesto Mormons who try to interpret it to apply solely to eternal marriage to one spouse.

I am happy to be corrected on that, though.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hmmm...my reading of D&C 132 is quite different than yours. Oh well.

Link to comment

I am happy to be corrected on that, though.

I have found that a careful reading shows that the revelation came as a result of the question as to why Abraham could have so many wives. The Lord then replies as to the law that allows it which is the new and everlasting covenant, which includes marriage. The New and Everlasting covenant is not just marriage and not just plural marriage.

It's not until verse 29 that he gets back to Abraham and explains how that fits with the N&E Covenant and gives seperately the Law of Abraham, which is plural marriage. To me it is very clear they are separate and that the Law of Abraham is a part of the N&E Covenant but is not the covenant which includes all "covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations".

Link to comment

Question for all the guys saying that the commandment has not been rescinded. How many wives do you currently have and if you only have one, why, since the commandment is still in force in your eyes?

Link to comment

Question for all the guys saying that the commandment has not been rescinded. How many wives do you currently have and if you only have one, why, since the commandment is still in force in your eyes?

My father has been sealed to two wives. My mother, for 55 years, and then to the wife he married a year and a half ago after my mother passed away.

Link to comment

My father has been sealed to two wives. My mother, for 55 years, and then to the wife he married a year and a half ago after my mother passed away.

Not about being sealed to a new wife when one is deceased. We are talking about the commandment that some seem to believe is still to be practiced in having more than one living wife. No one has claimed that plural marriage isn't still permitted for those with deceased spouses or that there won't be those in heaven who have more than one wife sealed to them. However, what is being challenged is that everyone must enter into plural marriage or they are not living the N&E Covenant. All that is required is to be sealed to one wife and in fact that is all that is permitted for living spouses.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...