Why Wasn't Emma The First To Be Sealed To Joseph?

[Calm]

VGJ was talking in the here and now so that was how I responded.

[JLHPROF]

I think there is some inconsistency in teaching and I don't know how it will play out but I highly doubt anyone is going to be saved without accepting Christ as Lord, Master and Saviour and I don't see either spouses or parents as puppet masters mouthing the words for their family members so they can sneak them in the back door.

A woman can't just get herself sealed to the prophet and then go abuse her children, lie about her neighbours, sleep around and still be guaranteed an automatic place for salvation without going through the same repentance process everyone else gets.

 

D&C 132:19 guarantees that salvation/exaltation (unless innocent blood has been shed).  Some sort of repentance/payment for the sin may be necessary, but it won't change the eventual exaltation.

[pogi]

D&C 132:19 guarantees that salvation/exaltation (unless innocent blood has been shed).  Some sort of repentance/payment for the sin may be necessary, but it won't change the eventual exaltation.

 

Sweeeeet...let's get this party started!

[canard78]

Not entirely sure I agree with that - the sealing relationship can absolutely bring about salvation.

I Corinthians 7:14 - For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

"When a seal is put upon the father and mother, it secures their posterity, so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother.” - Joseph Smith (quoted by Elder Bednar, March 2014)

...just a couple of quotes.

The official position is that if a wife (or husband) has their name removed, but remains married, then all their temple blessings are revoked, including their sealing to their spouse and children.

The idea that one faithful spouse will be able to rescue a wife/husband/children who have strayed is Mormon folklore but not a current teaching.

[omni]

D&C 132:19 guarantees that salvation/exaltation (unless innocent blood has been shed). Some sort of repentance/payment for the sin may be necessary, but it won't change the eventual exaltation.

So you're saying I've still got a chance...

[pogi]

The plural wives weren't aware of the current language of the sealing covenants. Is there a reason they should expect it to be conditional when they are promised or guaranteed salvation?

 

I don't think we know the exact language of their covenants.  One thing we know is that all covenants are conditional.  Their promises are no different from the promises made to all members in section 132, and I expect my salvation to be conditional.

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't think we know the exact language of their covenants.  One thing we know is that all covenants are conditional.  Their promises are no different from the promises made to all members in section 132, and I expect my salvation to be conditional.

We do know that they weren't making covenants in the temple. These sealings happened in homes and groves. It's presentism to think our current understanding of conditional blessings applies to their understanding.

 

Also, remember section 132 wasn't received until 1843 (after most of the plural marraiges had already been entered into) and was not made a part of the doctrine and covenants until the Utah period.

[pogi]

We do know that they weren't making covenants in the temple. These sealings happened in homes and groves.

 

I think the covenant rather than the place is more significant.  I never thought they were sealed in temples.

 

It's presentism to think our current understanding of conditional blessings applies to their understanding.

 

I don't think that conditional blessings or salvation is a modern concept at all.

 

Also, remember section 132 wasn't received until 1843 (after most of the plural marraiges had already been entered into) and was not made a part of the doctrine and covenants until the Utah period.

 

The point is that the promises are the same to me as they were to them. 

[HappyJackWagon]

I think the covenant rather than the place is more significant.  I never thought they were sealed in temples.

 

If that's true then are temples necessary at all? Or just a nice convenience for us? 

 

 

 

I don't think that conditional blessings or salvation is a modern concept at all.

 

Do we have journal accounts that share the language of sealing that was used outside the temple? Do we even know that a covenant was made?

 

 

 

The point is that the promises are the same to me as they were to them. 

 

My question is, how do we know that the promises and understood conditionality are the same? The ceremonies were different. They weren't held in the temple. They weren't even conducted by individuals who held sealing keys (unless someone is aware of JS giving those keys prior to the ceremony) This is why I'm suggesting this is presentism. We are applying our understanding and practice to a time when the practice was clearly different. I'm not sure if the understanding was different but it seems reasonable to suspect that it was as the sealing theology was evolving significantly during this time and long into the Utah period.

[Jeanne]

We do know that they weren't making covenants in the temple. These sealings happened in homes and groves. It's presentism to think our current understanding of conditional blessings applies to their understanding.

 

Also, remember section 132 wasn't received until 1843 (after most of the plural marraiges had already been entered into) and was not made a part of the doctrine and covenants until the Utah period.

Why spend millions on Temples if these covenants can be made anywhere?  

[cinepro]

Why spend millions on Temples if these covenants can be made anywhere?  

 

Generally speaking, I think the non-Temple ordinances are only performed in exceptional circumstances where it is not possible to build a Temple (or while a Temple is being built).  But once a Temple is available, then that's where they need to be done.  The only exception I can think of would be the Endowment House, which was used even after the St. George and other Utah Temples were complete.

[pogi]

If that's true then are temples necessary at all? Or just a nice convenience for us?

 

Why spend millions on Temples if these covenants can be made anywhere?  

 

I think those are questions for another thread perhaps.  I don't think it relates to the topic at hand.  I will say this, the Lord has commanded throughout history that temples be built and used when and where possible, but has not witheld covenants or promises when temples were not available.  I believe they are necessary as far as we are commanded to build and use them.

 

Do we have journal accounts that share the language of sealing that was used outside the temple? Do we even know that a covenant was made?

 

If we do, I am not aware of them, but what is a marriage if not a covenant?  Marriages have always been covenants to Christians, not just LDS.  This is not "presentism."  See Malachi 2:14.  I have no reason to believe that these marriages were anything but covenants.  There is recorded ceremonies, sealings, promises, and whitnesses.  These were not simply contractural arangements - indeed they could not be by law.  Joseph Smith thought in terms of covenants, his whole life revolved around the teaching, practicing and restoring of covenants. It is ludicrous to think that these marriages were anything less.

 

My question is, how do we know that the promises and understood conditionality are the same? The ceremonies were different. They weren't held in the temple. They weren't even conducted by individuals who held sealing keys (unless someone is aware of JS giving those keys prior to the ceremony) This is why I'm suggesting this is presentism. We are applying our understanding and practice to a time when the practice was clearly different. I'm not sure if the understanding was different but it seems reasonable to suspect that it was as the sealing theology was evolving significantly during this time and long into the Utah period.

 

See above.  Marriage as covenants is not presentism.  Conditional salvation and blessings through covenant is also not presentism. Promises made through covenant have always been understood as conditional as evidenced by scriptures and early church teachings.  I have no reason to suspect that these marriages were somehow different.  Yes, the ceremonies, keys, and temple ordinances were still unfolding, but the foundation of covenant marriages and conditional salvation have never changed.

Edited November 18, 2014 by pogi

[BCSpace]

You can't use Joseph Smith's marriages to teenagers as evidence that such ages weren't necessarily unreasonable or unheard of in terms of marriages at the time.

 

I didn't.  I'm using Emma's outward approval and literally giving of them.

[JLHPROF]

The idea that one faithful spouse will be able to rescue a wife/husband/children who have strayed is Mormon folklore but not a current teaching.

 

When have every cared about a teaching being "current"?  Truth is truth, whether it was taught in the 1800's, the 1900's or today.  And if one says yes and the other says no, that doesn't change which one is true.

[BCSpace]

D&C 132:19 guarantees that salvation/exaltation (unless innocent blood has been shed). Some sort of repentance/payment for the sin may be necessary, but it won't change the eventual exaltation.

 

The doctrine of the Church makes it clear that this is not the case:

 

Some members of the Church mistakenly believe that marriage in the temple fulfills the requirements of the covenant. But marriage in the temple fulfills only the first two parts of the covenant. Having one’s marriage sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise requires a lifelong commitment to righteousness (see Notes and Commentary on D&C 132:7). Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught that “baptism is the gate to the celestial kingdom; celestial marriage is the gate to an exaltation in the highest heaven within the celestial world. (D. & C. 131:1–4.) To gain salvation after baptism it is necessary to keep the commandments of God and endure to the end (2 Ne. 31:17–21); to gain exaltation after celestial marriage it is necessary to continue the same devotion and righteousness. Those who have been married in the temples for eternity know that the ceremony itself expressly conditions the receipt of all promised blessings upon the subsequent faithfulness of the husband and wife.

“Making one’s calling and election sure is an addition to celestial marriage and results from undeviating and perfect devotion to the cause of righteousness. Those married in the temple can never under any circumstances gain exaltation unless they keep the commandments of God and abide in the covenant of marriage which they have taken upon themselves.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 118.)

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-132-marriage-an-eternal-covenant?lang=eng

 

 

[BCSpace]

When have every cared about a teaching being "current"?  Truth is truth, whether it was taught in the 1800's, the 1900's or today.  And if one says yes and the other says no, that doesn't change which one is true.

 

Agreed. It's not whether or not a doctrine has been expressed currently, it's whether or not new doctrine has superseded it or added details.

[JLHPROF]

The doctrine of the Church makes it clear that this is not the case:

 

Actually, if you note, I never claimed D&C 132:19 referred to simply being married.

 

I was responding to Calmoriahs statement that

"A woman can't just get herself sealed to the prophet and then go abuse her children, lie about her neighbours, sleep around and still be guaranteed an automatic place for salvation without going through the same repentance process everyone else gets."

 

 

And I was backhandedly referring to the second anointing which women who were "sealed to the prophet" almost always received and in which one of the blessings promised as referred to in D&C 132:19 is:

 

then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

 

So follow the logic there -> Woman wants guaranteed exaltation -> woman "get's herself sealed to the prophet" -> prophet ensures his wives receive their 2nd anointings -> wife now has a guarantee that unless she commits murder (or denies the Holy Ghost) that she WILL get her exaltation.

 

It may not be current doctrine, but it is part of the reason a woman might choose Joseph over a non-member husband or an average member who may not receive the guarantee in this life and is subject to breaking their covenants and losing exaltation because they haven't the guarantee.

 

But once that higher blessing is bestowed D&C 132:19 (and the ceremony itself) makes it clear that they CANNOT fall from exaltation, even if some repentance was required.  I can see why someone would choose a guarantee over a hope.

Edited November 19, 2014 by JLHPROF

[BCSpace]

Actually, if you note, I never claimed D&C 132:19 referred to simply being married.

 

I was responding to Calmoriahs statement that

 

And I was backhandedly referring to the second anointing which women who were "sealed to the prophet" almost always received and in which one of the blessings promised as referred to in D&C 132:19 is:

 

So follow the logic there -> Woman wants guaranteed exaltation -> woman "get's herself sealed to the prophet" -> prophet ensures his wives receive their 2nd anointings -> wife now has a guarantee that unless she commits murder (or denies the Holy Ghost) that she WILL get her exaltation.

 

It may not be current doctrine, but it is part of the reason a woman might choose Joseph over a non-member husband or an average member who may not receive the guarantee in this life and is subject to breaking their covenants and losing exaltation because they haven't the guarantee.

 

But once that higher blessing is bestowed D&C 132:19 (and the ceremony itself) makes it clear that they CANNOT fall from exaltation, even if some repentance was required.  I can see why someone would choose a guarantee over a hope.

 

Thanks for the explanation. My recent posts in this thread the other day were also misunderstood and unfortunately I responded as if the response had anything at all to do with what I had said.

 

I think it all has to do with male and female minds misinterpreting one another as I find is often the case with a subject like this.

 

I believe such misinterpretation is usually one-side, but I'm not going to say that out loud....

Edited November 19, 2014 by BCSpace

[DBMormon]

You just made that up!

you just haven't read enough on the issue

[HappyJackWagon]

If we do, I am not aware of them, but what is a marriage if not a covenant?  Marriages have always been covenants to Christians, not just LDS. 

 

 

My point is, our modern understanding of a temple covenant is not the same as a traditional marriage because we make covenants with God where that is not necessarily present in a marriage ceremony. We simply don't know if the sealings in JS time made the same covenants or if the people understood them in that way.

 

 

Quote

D&C 132:19 guarantees that salvation/exaltation (unless innocent blood has been shed). Some sort of repentance/payment for the sin may be necessary, but it won't change the eventual exaltation.

 

The doctrine of the Church makes it clear that this is not the case:

 

Quote

Some members of the Church mistakenly believe that marriage in the temple fulfills the requirements of the covenant. But marriage in the temple fulfills only the first two parts of the covenant. Having one’s marriage sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise requires a lifelong commitment to righteousness (see Notes and Commentary on D&C 132:7). Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught that “baptism is the gate to the celestial kingdom; celestial marriage is the gate to an exaltation in the highest heaven within the celestial world. (D. & C. 131:1–4.) To gain salvation after baptism it is necessary to keep the commandments of God and endure to the end (2 Ne. 31:17–21); to gain exaltation after celestial marriage it is necessary to continue the same devotion and righteousness. Those who have been married in the temples for eternity know that the ceremony itself expressly conditions the receipt of all promised blessings upon the subsequent faithfulness of the husband and wife.

“Making one’s calling and election sure is an addition to celestial marriage and results from undeviating and perfect devotion to the cause of righteousness. Those married in the temple can never under any circumstances gain exaltation unless they keep the commandments of God and abide in the covenant of marriage which they have taken upon themselves.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 118.)

 

https://www.lds.org/...venant?lang=eng

 

 

 

The canonized D&C scripture seems very clear about the guarantee of exaltation.

The non-canonized quote by Bruce R McConkie contradicts it but seems more in line with current church teachings and understanding. Which should we go with?

[Mars]

[~snip~]

 

The canonized D&C scripture seems very clear about the guarantee of exaltation.

The non-canonized quote by Bruce R McConkie contradicts it but seems more in line with current church teachings and understanding. Which should we go with?

 

(Italics mine)

 

I disagree.  The following bolded part of D&C 132:19 is why I don't think there's a guarantee:

 

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood you, though.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

and if ye abide in my covenant,

It would be interesting to have this phrase defined because that requirement isn't found in verse 26 and in fact it appears that salvation will be attained even if they sin against their covenant.

 

 D&C 132

 

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

[Mars]

I don't really care to go down the road of trying to convince you to see it my way.

 

I certainly disagree that "[t]he canonized D&C scripture seems very clear about the guarantee of exaltation" irrespective of how you read verse 26.  But I understand how you see it and I suppose that's that.

[JLHPROF]

and if ye abide in my covenant

 

This obviously refers to keeping of the marital covenant, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

If we want to know what this entails we should read the marriage ceremony for the promises we make - to observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to marriage.  That is the only thing we promise as part of that covenant.

 

So as long as the second anointing is received by people who haven't broken that covenant (vs 26 even allows for transgression), they are guaranteed exaltation.

 

D&C 132:19 & 26 refer to the second anointing.  The second anointing guarantees exaltation unless the unpardonable sin is committed.  Marriage is not a guarantee of exaltation, but a married couple receiving their 2nd anointings is.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

D&C 132:19 & 26 refer to the second anointing.  The second anointing guarantees exaltation unless the unpardonable sin is committed.  Marriage is not a guarantee of exaltation, but a married couple receiving their 2nd anointings is.

 

How do you know this?