Jeanne Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I had no idea that people COULD be sealed for just "time". I thought that was just regular old "marriage" and that "sealing" was for all eternity. What is the point of being "sealed just for time"? That's just like till death do you part. Or am I not getting something again?Yeah..what is that all about? Why not just go to a civil judge or Bishop and get married? What am I missing here?
cinepro Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I had no idea that people COULD be sealed for just "time". I thought that was just regular old "marriage" and that "sealing" was for all eternity. What is the point of being "sealed just for time"? That's just like till death do you part. Or am I not getting something again? There is a special provision for two people who are already sealed to deceased spouses but want to get married. They can be married "for time" in the Temple. I have no idea what the wording of the ceremony is, or if it is done with the "sealing power" or is more of a conventional ceremony.
Silhouette Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 There is a special provision for two people who are already sealed to deceased spouses but want to get married. They can be married "for time" in the Temple. I have no idea what the wording of the ceremony is, or if it is done with the "sealing power" or is more of a conventional ceremony.Hmmm. This raises another question for me. I mean, I guess I understand about getting a regular old "marriage" in the temple, till death do you part, as long as it's not called a "sealing". What I don't understand is this: If a woman can be sealed to more than one husband after she and they are all dead, why can't she be sealed to another man while she's alive? Why do all parties have to be dead in order for the woman to be sealed to more than one man?In other words, why would anybody want to be married for just "time" in the temple? The only reason I can see would be since the woman can't be sealed to more than one man while she's alive....which brings us back to my question above about why does she have to be dead to be sealed to more than one man.She might end up sealed to all of them ANYWAY, so what's the difference?
Silhouette Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Yeah..what is that all about? Why not just go to a civil judge or Bishop and get married? What am I missing here?
sethpayne Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 That's important why? Let's say I go out shopping and on the way I meet some buddies who invite me to go and drink some beers and watch the game. When I get home my wife asks: "Where have you been?" I reply: "Oh, just out shopping." Is my reply fully honest? 1
ERayR Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Let's say I go out shopping and on the way I meet some buddies who invite me to go and drink some beers and watch the game. When I get home my wife asks: "Where have you been?" I reply: "Oh, just out shopping." Is my reply fully honest? "So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view". (Star Wars Episode VI)
JLHPROF Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I had no idea that people COULD be sealed for just "time". I thought that was just regular old "marriage" and that "sealing" was for all eternity. What is the point of being "sealed just for time"? That's just like till death do you part. Or am I not getting something again? Yeah..what is that all about? Why not just go to a civil judge or Bishop and get married? What am I missing here? One famous example, and possibly the first such marriage in this dispensation - My beloved husband, R. B. Thompson, your father's private secretary to the end of his mortal life, died August 27th, 1841.... Nearly two years after his death your father [Joseph the Prophet] told me that my husband had appeared to him several times, telling him that he did not wish me to live such a lonely life, and wished him to request your uncle Hyrum to have me sealed to him for time. Hyrum communicated this to his wife (my sister) who, by request, opened the subject to me, when everything within me rose in opposition to such a step, but when your father [Joseph the Prophet] called and explained the subject to me, I dared not refuse to obey the counsel, lest peradventure I should be found fighting against God; and especially when he told me the last time my husband appeared to him he came with such power that it made him tremble. He then enquired of the Lord what he should do; the answer was, 'Go and do as my servant hath required.' He then took an opportunity of communicating this to your uncle Hyrum who told me that the Holy Spirit rested upon him from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet The time was appointed, with the consent of all parties, and your father sealed me to your uncle Hyrum for time, in my sister's room, with a covenant to deliver me up in the morning of the resurrection to Robert Blaskel Thompson, with whatever offspring should be the result of that union, at the same time counseling your uncle to build a room for me and move me over as soon as convenient, which he did, and I remained there as a wife the same as my sister to the day of his death.... MERCY R. THOMPSON. and there are other stories you can find by googling where the same covenant was made. 1
sethpayne Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 "So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view". (Star Wars Episode VI) Indeed! But was it fully honest? I'm making a rather crude comparison but from one point of view we have some Church members who are, for lack of a better word, "hurt" when they find out some of these historical details. So when the Church puts out official info and omits the very thing most people find most problematic about JS polygamy (polyandry), it only reinforces the perception that the Church is "hiding" something. On these things the Church is best served, I think, by disclosing as much as possible because whether they mention it in official channels or not, folks are going to learn about it. And when they do, there is the risk that they will be "hurt" as a result of a perception of intentional omission.
BCSpace Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 (edited) The LDS Church says : The Church essays does not deny, it just omits that there is a third category of married women who did make it known. For example, Patty Bartlett Sessions stated: Yet in none of these cases with JS is there any actual polyandry in evidence. Edited November 19, 2014 by BCSpace
JLHPROF Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Yet in none of these cases with JS is there any actual polyandry in evidence. Does it really matter? This goes round and round and round without any conclusion... If Joseph was sealed to these women for time and eternity instead of just time and had relations with them so what? They were sealed to no other man. If they were sealed to him for time and all eternity instead of their legal husbands, then he could not commit adultery with them. They were given to him and only him by God. Priesthood power trumps marriage license. I feel no urge to explain away Joseph's plural marriages as "sealings", "eternity only", "platonic", "dynastic" or anything else.They were his wives, regardless of living arrangements. The sealer says "I pronounce you husband and wife" - no other relationship is on record ever. They were never pronounced anything else that we have record of. The only question is whether they were pronounced husband and wife for time and eternity, or for eternity only. If someone has another name for what the man and the woman are called when they are sealed I'd like to know where? If it turns out they were just for eternity and he didn't sleep with them, great, even better, make everyone feel better about the relationships.But if in the end they were for time and eternity and they consummated the marriage, so what? They were his eternal companions, nobody else's. They were joined to him as wives and belonged in his family. Any of their children belonged to him by right of the covenant. Now if they were violating their temple covenants or the covenants of the marriage ceremony, then members of the Church would really have something to trouble them about Joseph. But that didn't happen.We can work hard to make ourselves feel better by picking away at dates and history, or we can sit back and accept that either Joseph was sealed for eternity only and never consummated the relationships with his eternal wives or he was sealed for time and all eternity and had many wives here too. And either of those is acceptable.
BCSpace Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Does it really matter? This goes round and round and round without any conclusion... In the sense that anti Mormons try to gain traction by presenting the doctrine as based on lust and that it was orgiastic or abusive, I'd say it does matter. The only voice on the issue shouldn't be the yellow journalism of our enemies.
Calm Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Hmmm. This raises another question for me. I mean, I guess I understand about getting a regular old "marriage" in the temple, till death do you part, as long as it's not called a "sealing". What I don't understand is this: If a woman can be sealed to more than one husband after she and they are all dead, why can't she be sealed to another man while she's alive? Why do all parties have to be dead in order for the woman to be sealed to more than one man?In other words, why would anybody want to be married for just "time" in the temple? The only reason I can see would be since the woman can't be sealed to more than one man while she's alive....which brings us back to my question above about why does she have to be dead to be sealed to more than one man.She might end up sealed to all of them ANYWAY, so what's the difference?Tradition...
Calm Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Yeah..what is that all about? Why not just go to a civil judge or Bishop and get married? What am I missing here?Because some want to be married in the temple without getting a sealing cancelation for the woman.
theplains Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Doctrine and Covenants 132 mentions the term concubines four times. Does the LDS Churchever use that same term to describe Joseph Smith's pattern of following Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,Moses, David and Solomon? If no, why not? Thanks,Jim
LinuxGal Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 If Joseph was sealed to these women for time and eternity instead of just time and had relations with them so what? They were sealed to no other man. If they were sealed to him for time and all eternity instead of their legal husbands, then he could not commit adultery with them. They were given to him and only him by God. Priesthood power trumps marriage license. The revelation on marriage required that a wife give her consent before her husband could enter into plural marriage. By saying the priesthood power trumps traditional matrimony, you're saying that consent didn't work the other way around, that the wife could dissolve her first marriage to be sealed with the Prophet without the consent of her existing husband.
Grundelwalken Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) Indeed! But was it fully honest? Check with Abraham and Sarah for your answer.MW Edited November 25, 2014 by Grundelwalken
JLHPROF Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 The revelation on marriage required that a wife give her consent before her husband could enter into plural marriage. By saying the priesthood power trumps traditional matrimony, you're saying that consent didn't work the other way around, that the wife could dissolve her first marriage to be sealed with the Prophet without the consent of her existing husband. Yes. And?
LinuxGal Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Yes. And? Wow. Even King David had to kill Uriah to get Bathsheba, not just command her to leave her husband because he had a "revelation".
JLHPROF Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Wow. Even King David had to kill Uriah to get Bathsheba, not just command her to leave her husband because he had a "revelation". And yet Joseph was fine with it when Mary became pregnant and gave birth to a child that wasn't his...
Silhouette Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Because some want to be married in the temple without getting a sealing cancelation for the woman.Sorry, coming back into this thread pretty late, but I still don't understand how a couple can be "sealed" for time. I know people can be married in the temple without being "sealed for time and all eternity", but if the "sealing" doesn't extend into eternity, isn't it just a regular marriage "till death do you part"? I don't understand how the word "sealed" applies to a "time only" marrriage.Maybe I'm just dim. Been through a lot the past week or so. Nothing bad particularly, just busy and stressful. Might not be all "there" in thinking clearly. Somebody 'splain this "sealed for time" thing to me s l o w l y...
Tacenda Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Don't feel bad Silhouette, in the past week and a half, I got mixed up on the days of two separate sub jobs at some schools. Therefore I got a call asking me if I was coming in. So twice I was caught unaware, and usually in my pj's where I had to just throw on some clothes, and run. No time for a shower or anything. I was pretty embarrassed. That never usually happens. My mind was out to lunch! Or it may be we're stressing over the upcoming holidays or something.
Calm Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 I don't know what the language is for a time only ceremony, someone else will need to address that.
Silhouette Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Don't feel bad Silhouette, in the past week and a half, I got mixed up on the days of two separate sub jobs at some schools. Therefore I got a call asking me if I was coming in. So twice I was caught unaware, and usually in my pj's where I had to just throw on some clothes, and run. No time for a shower or anything. I was pretty embarrassed. That never usually happens. My mind was out to lunch! Or it may be we're stressing over the upcoming holidays or something.The stress of the holidays sounds like a good excuse for us! Let's let that be our story and we're sticking with it LOL.
Silhouette Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 I don't know what the language is for a time only ceremony, someone else will need to address that. Yes, it would be interesting to know how it works.
LinuxGal Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 And yet Joseph was fine with it when Mary became pregnant and gave birth to a child that wasn't his... No, he wasn't fine with it, he tried to divorce her, at first. The people of Nazareth weren't fine with it either. In Mark 6:3 they said, " Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary..." Note that they didn't say the son of Joseph. That speaks volumes.
Recommended Posts