Sealings in the Kirtland Temple

[Duncan]

Does anybody know if there were sealings performed in the Kirtland Temple? I know it wouldn't have been for long if there was

[HappyJackWagon]

No. Sealings didn't begin until Nauvoo. The Kirtland temple had washings and annointings (though quite a bit different than how we think of it today).

So, no, Fanny wasn't sealed to Joseph before their "dirty nasty, filthy affair."

Quote

After attending to the duties above spoken I repaired to a room in Company with Elder Meeks & Priest J Turpin to attend to our first washing. After washing our bodies from head to foot in soap & watter we then washed ourselves in clear watter next in perfumed spirits (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, edited by Scott G. Kenny, as quoted in Mysteries of Godliness, p. 32).

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Duncan]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

No. Sealings didn't begin until Nauvoo. The Kirtland temple had washings and annointings (though quite a bit different than how we think of it today).

So, no, Fanny wasn't sealed to Joseph before their "dirty nasty, filthy affair."

do you know why they weren't done?

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. Sealings didn't begin until Nauvoo. The Kirtland temple had washings and annointings (though quite a bit different than how we think of it today).

So, no, Fanny wasn't sealed to Joseph before their "dirty nasty, filthy affair."

 

Good job turning a question about temple ordinances into a put down of the prophet Joseph Smith.

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. Sealings didn't begin until Nauvoo. The Kirtland temple had washings and annointings (though quite a bit different than how we think of it today).

So, no, Fanny wasn't sealed to Joseph before their "dirty nasty, filthy affair."

 

Emma wasn't sealed to Joseph either until September of 1843.  That didn't make their marriage an "affair" either.

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, Duncan said:

do you know why they weren't done?

Because the ordinance hadn't been fully revealed at that time.
The ordinances performed in the Kirtland Temple were primarily taken from scripture (Christ washing feet etc) and were ecclesiastical in nature.
While the authority to seal on earth and in heaven was restored in the Kirtland period, the ordinances to use that authority were restored a little later. 

My personal opinion is that Joseph and the saints proved themselves worthy of the restoration of those ordinances through their sacrifices in Missouri.  Joseph after Liberty Jail was a very different prophet than he was in the Kirtland period.  God accepted their sacrifice and restored the blessings of eternal families and the endowment.

[Duncan]

Just now, ksfisher said:

Good job turning a question about temple ordinances into a put down of the prophet Joseph Smith.

I didn't interpret it that way! I never even been to Ohio!

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Does anybody know if there were sealings performed in the Kirtland Temple? I know it wouldn't have been for long if there was

What kind of sealings are you talking about?  Early Mormonism they had meetings where whole congregations were sealed up unto salvation.  I can't remember the exact wording, but Greg Prince's book on Priesthood talks about some of these experiences.  The word seal was used differently during the Kirtland time period.  So was the word endow, which was originally about endowing missionaries with power similar to the NT endowing of power I believe talked about in Acts. 

The only things I'm aware of that they performed in the Kirtland temple were some early forms of washing and anointing, much different than we have today, and without the same language (Masonic language wasn't added until Nauvoo).  

The idea about sealing didn't start to evolve until late Nauvoo period.  The theology wasn't even connected to Elijah giving the keys of sealing until after Joseph's death if I remember correctly.  

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What kind of sealings are you talking about?  Early Mormonism they had meetings where whole congregations were sealed up unto salvation.  I can't remember the exact wording, but Greg Prince's book on Priesthood talks about some of these experiences.  The word seal was used differently during the Kirtland time period.  So was the word endow, which was originally about endowing missionaries with power similar to the NT endowing of power I believe talked about in Acts.

The only things I'm aware of that they performed in the Kirtland temple were some early forms of washing and anointing, much different than we have today, and without the same language (Masonic language wasn't added until Nauvoo).

The idea about sealing didn't start to evolve until late Nauvoo period.  The theology wasn't even connected to Elijah giving the keys of sealing until after Joseph's death if I remember correctly.

I believe the wording was "sealed up to eternal life".  Since all that is required for eternal life is to accept the Savior's atonement that wasn't much of a stretch.
Even if they meant sealed up to God's Celestial glory, that still only requires baptism and enduring to the end.

Those Kirtland sealings were odd.  They always appear to me to be precursors to the Nauvoo second anointing ceremony but without all the prerequisites to receive it.

The more I learn of the Kirtland theology and practices, the more I am convinced that much of it did not come by revelation (although much did) and instead was an attempt by mortal leaders to integrate the traditional Christianity they had been raised with, New Testament practices they felt had been lost, and the new revelation that God was actually providing.  That's a tricky prospect by any standard.

Such an integration required much additional revelation to provide further light and knowledge and dispel certain false traditions and by Nauvoo much of the false tradition had been dropped from Mormon theology.

[Duncan]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

What kind of sealings are you talking about?  Early Mormonism they had meetings where whole congregations were sealed up unto salvation.  I can't remember the exact wording, but Greg Prince's book on Priesthood talks about some of these experiences.  The word seal was used differently during the Kirtland time period.  So was the word endow, which was originally about endowing missionaries with power similar to the NT endowing of power I believe talked about in Acts. 

The only things I'm aware of that they performed in the Kirtland temple were some early forms of washing and anointing, much different than we have today, and without the same language (Masonic language wasn't added until Nauvoo).  

The idea about sealing didn't start to evolve until late Nauvoo period.  The theology wasn't even connected to Elijah giving the keys of sealing until after Joseph's death if I remember correctly.  

ah, the kind we perform today or others, not me

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe the wording was "sealed up to eternal life".  Since all that is required for eternal life is to accept the Savior's atonement that wasn't much of a stretch.
Even if they meant sealed up to God's Celestial glory, that still only requires baptism and enduring to the end.

Those Kirtland sealings were odd.  They always appear to me to be precursors to the Nauvoo second anointing ceremony but without all the prerequisites to receive it.

The idea is that the Holy Ghost seals people. Even in the later Nauvoo theology tied to priesthood rites the rites are only effectuous when sealed by the Holy Ghost. That theology persists to today and is the NT view for the most part as well.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

The idea is that the Holy Ghost seals people. Even in the later Nauvoo theology tied to priesthood rites the rites are only effectuous when sealed by the Holy Ghost. That theology persists to today and is the NT view for the most part as well.

I agree with that.  The Holy Spirit of Promise has to ratify ALL ordinances.  D&C 132:7 is interesting in that it does a good job combining the sealing by the Holy Ghost with the priesthood keys held by the one man on the earth.  It makes them almost one and the same.
 

• D&C 132:7 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.

 

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe the wording was "sealed up to eternal life".  Since all that is required for eternal life is to accept the Savior's atonement that wasn't much of a stretch.
Even if they meant sealed up to God's Celestial glory, that still only requires baptism and enduring to the end.

Those Kirtland sealings were odd.  They always appear to me to be precursors to the Nauvoo second anointing ceremony but without all the prerequisites to receive it.

The more I learn of the Kirtland theology and practices, the more I am convinced that much of it did not come by revelation (although much did) and instead was an attempt by mortal leaders to integrate the traditional Christianity they had been raised with, New Testament practices they felt had been lost, and the new revelation that God was actually providing.  That's a tricky prospect by any standard.

Such an integration required much additional revelation to provide further light and knowledge and dispel certain false traditions and by Nauvoo much of the false tradition had been dropped from Mormon theology.

Thanks on the wording, I couldn't quite remember if they were using that Eternal life wording by then or not.  

I kind of view it all as experimentation, not revelation.  I think we're experimenting today as well.  I think sometimes we get closer to the will of the divine and other times we are way far away from it (racist & gender based priesthood, polygamy, blood atonement, etc.)  

I see the gospel movement as a movement to try and align our will with the will of the divine.  Unfortunately, our human flaws often cloud our judgment and very harmful practices and teachings are the result.

I do like the idea of being sealed up to God, not as a promise that our actions don't have consequences anymore (this came out of the 2nd anointing language), but as an acknowledgment that God is with us, that God loves us, and God is "on our side" as Uchtdorf just mentioned this weekend in his wonderful address.  I believe we are all "sealed up to God" as part of God's eternal family, that idea has power in my view as a concept, not obtained by ritual or righteousness, but a divine heritage that the entire human family and all creations are a part of.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Good job turning a question about temple ordinances into a put down of the prophet Joseph Smith.

I added it because that is often the underlying question when people asking about the timing of sealings and Kirtland.

Quote

JLHPROF- Emma wasn't sealed to Joseph either until September of 1843.  That didn't make their marriage an "affair" either.

But he was legally married to Emma, so no, theirs was not an "affair".

With Fanny, he was neither legally married, nor was he sealed to her. So if not a marriage or a sealing, what was it? "Affair" works fine for me.

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I added it because that is often the underlying question when people asking about the timing of sealings and Kirtland.

But he was legally married to Emma, so no, theirs was not an "affair".

With Fanny, he was neither legally married, nor was he sealed to her. So if not a marriage or a sealing, what was it? "Affair" works fine for me.

But why even bring it up?  The OP was about sealings in the Kirtland Temple.  You used the post as an opportunity to denigrate Joseph Smith.

[JLHPROF]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I added it because that is often the underlying question when people asking about the timing of sealings and Kirtland.

But he was legally married to Emma, so no, theirs was not an "affair".

With Fanny, he was neither legally married, nor was he sealed to her. So if not a marriage or a sealing, what was it? "Affair" works fine for me.

They were married, by the same Church authority with which he was performing all marriages at the time.
Not sealing.  Not civilly licensed.  But a marriage by the head of his Church (which in many states is still the legal requirement other than a marriage license.)

Basically, Don Bradley was right on this - (Mormon Polygamy before Nauvoo & The Relationship of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger By Don Bradley)

 

• Early Latter-day Saint elders believed they were within their rights to perform marriages, as ministers of the Gospel, and did so where this was legally permissible.  But they were long denied this privilege in Kirtland, barred from obtaining licenses to perform marriages under ministerial authority (likely because their religious body was not properly incorporated with the county).  Among the Saints, only Sidney Rigdon, who still possessed a license from his days as a “Campbellite” minister, used ministerial authority to perform public marriages.  But ultimately even Rigdon was blocked from doing so and was indicted in June 1835 for performing a marriage on a license that was presumed revoked, because of his changed of denomination.  Any Latter Day Saint who performed a marriage in Geauga County on ministerial authority was subject to prosecution.  The publication of the Article on Marriage two months later changed this.  Ohio marriage statute provided that officiators could act without a license so long as the ceremony was done “agreeable to the rules and regulations of their respective churches.” 
  Because the Saints now had official rules and regulations regarding marriage, their ministers could assert the right to perform marriages accordingly.  Indeed, this was likely an intended effect of the Article on Marriage and may account for the urgency of including the Article in the Doctrine and Covenants and even the need for it to disclaim the recent incident or incidents of polygamy.  The Saints needed an official statement of marriage rules in order to legally perform their own marriages, and a public impression that the Saints would use this legal right to form quasi-legal polygamous marriages may have undermined their ability to assert it.  Though the Article on Marriage responds in part to an early incident of polygamy in the church, it is not about polygamy.  Its purpose, and effect, was to enable the Saints to exercise in the legal domain an authority they believed they already held in the spiritual—the power to marry.

  With the Article in place and the Doctrine and Covenants printed, the prophet began asserting his rights of marriage, first in performing the nuptials of Newel Knight and Lydia Goldthwaite Bailey on November 24.  In doing so he declared, on Lydia’s recollection:

  Quote

  Our elders have been wronged and prosecuted for marrying without a license.  The Lord God of Israel has given me authority to unite the people in the holy bonds of matrimony and from this time forth I shall use that privilege to marry whomsoever I see fit.

  Newel similarly recalled that the prophet performed the marriage “the name of the Lord, & by the authority of the preisthood [sic].”

  That Smith claimed his authority to marry from God rather than from the state is significant.  If he claimed authority solely from the state, then he would be justified only in performing marriages duly authorized by the state.  But since he claimed authority from God, he could feel justified in performing, or delegating the performance of, any marriage he believed to authorized by God—including a polygamous one.
  There were several months between Smith’s November 1835 public assertion that he (and “our elders”) held divine authority to perform marriages and the discovery of his relationship with Alger, during which he could have had a marriage performed for them. 
  But there is no reason to suppose that Smith only came to believe he held divine authority to perform marriages when he acquired legal authority to perform them.  Smith’s November 1835 announcement celebrated his new ability to use his divine marriage authority legally, not a new bestowal of divine authority.  An account from justice of the peace J. C. Dowen suggests Smith may have begun marrying the Saints “according to the law of God” before that time, with the understanding that the legality of the marriage depended on it being also solemnized by one licensed to marry.[7]  In any case, Smith claimed divine authority to marry under God’s law no later than November 1835, making a marriage between himself and Fanny Alger after that date perfectly plausible.

So basically, Joseph could have had any Elder of the Church perform his marriage to Fanny, regardless of state licensing.
So no, not an affair because there were no sealing keys.

Edited April 4, 2017 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They were married, by the same Church authority with which he was performing all marriages at the time.
Not sealing.  Not civilly licensed.  But a marriage by the head of his Church (which in many states is still the legal requirement other than a marriage license.)

So you're claiming that he was married illegally to Fanny?

Quote

KSFISHER- But why even bring it up?  The OP was about sealings in the Kirtland Temple.  You used the post as an opportunity to denigrate Joseph Smith.

You quoted me when I explained why, and then you asked again? Strange. Thanks for not believing my answer and instead assigning negative motives. It's big of you  

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you're claiming that he was married illegally to Fanny?

Married, but without a state issued license.  Just as every polygamous marriage was done after the sealing keys and are still done today by polygamist groups.

A spiritual marriage, prior to the existence of eternal sealings.

[cinepro]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So basically, Joseph could have had any Elder of the Church perform his marriage to Fanny, regardless of state licensing.
So no, not an affair because there were no sealing keys.

Suppose Bob is legally married to Sue in the state of Oklahoma, and then Bob starts his own Church (the "Bobite" Church).  Bob then ordains his friend Carl as an Elder, and then Carl secretly marries Bob to Jennifer, a twenty-year-old girl from the local Jr. College.  Sue isn't told, nor is the local government, or anyone else in the Church. Bob and Jennifer subsequently and secretly consummate their marriage.  Has Bob "cheated" on Sue? 

Edited April 4, 2017 by cinepro

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Suppose Bob is legally married to Sue in the state of Oklahoma, and then Bob starts his own Church (the "Bobite" Church).  Bob then ordains his friend Carl as an Elder, and then Carl secretly marries Bob to Jennifer, a twenty-year-old girl from the local Jr. College.  Sue isn't told, nor is the local government, or anyone else in the Church. Bob and Jennifer subsequently and secretly consummate their marriage.  Has Bob "cheated" on Sue?

1. In the eyes of the state - Yes absolutely
2. In the eyes of Sue - Yes (almost certainly)
3. In the eyes of the Bobite Church organization - Possibly, depending on the organizational rules adopted at the time
4. In the eyes of the Bobite religion - Depends on what the sum beliefs of Bobitism allows
5. In the eyes of God (the only one that matters) - Depends on whether the Bobitsim comes from God or Bob

And to the eyes of the observer - that would depend on which perspective you are looking using from 1-5?

[HappyJackWagon]

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Married, but without a state issued license.  Just as every polygamous marriage was done after the sealing keys and are still done today by polygamist groups.

A spiritual marriage, prior to the existence of eternal sealings.

Right. So not a legal marriage. He wasn't married or sealed to Fanny. Sounds more like spiritual concubinary.

Obviously the church's current teaching (doctrine) about marriage only being between one man and one woman to whom they are legally and lawfull wed, isn't really an eternal doctrine at all.

The "marriage" to Fanny isn't like any marriage I've ever heard of. It's not legal. They don't live together. He doesn't support his "wife". The only similarity is consummation, which fits better under the label of "affair" or "concubine"

 

Duncan- sorry for the derail.

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Right. So not a legal marriage. He wasn't married or sealed to Fanny. Sounds more like spiritual concubinary.

Obviously the church's current teaching (doctrine) about marriage only being between one man and one woman to whom they are legally and lawfull wed, isn't really an eternal doctrine at all.

Pt 1.  Disagree.  You can say he wasn't legally married.  You can say he wasn't sealed.  But that doesn't mean he wasn't married to Fanny unless you consider those the only two types of marriages.

Pt 2. Agreed.  The Church's current teaching isn't an eternal doctrine at all.  Eternal doctrines don't change.  If they did they couldn't be called eternal.

Edited April 4, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Duncan]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Right. So not a legal marriage. He wasn't married or sealed to Fanny. Sounds more like spiritual concubinary.

Obviously the church's current teaching (doctrine) about marriage only being between one man and one woman to whom they are legally and lawfull wed, isn't really an eternal doctrine at all.

The "marriage" to Fanny isn't like any marriage I've ever heard of. It's not legal. They don't live together. He doesn't support his "wife". The only similarity is consummation, which fits better under the label of "affair" or "concubine"

 

Duncan- sorry for the derail.

 

it's fine! I am enjoying my Mcdonalds Vanilla Shake, Large, for dinner. I am all set!

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

1. In the eyes of the state - Yes absolutely
2. In the eyes of Sue - Yes (almost certainly)
3. In the eyes of the Bobite Church organization - Possibly, depending on the organizational rules adopted at the time
4. In the eyes of the Bobite religion - Depends on what the sum beliefs of Bobitism allows
5. In the eyes of God (the only one that matters) - Depends on whether the Bobitsim comes from God or Bob

And to the eyes of the observer - that would depend on which perspective you are looking using from 1-5?

When it comes to how my wife feels about me and our marriage, how I think God sees things isn't the only thing that matters.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Right. So not a legal marriage. He wasn't married or sealed to Fanny. Sounds more like spiritual concubinary.

......................................................................

The word is "concubinage," which was once quite common, and was actually legal.  In ancient Rome, for example, only monogamy was legal.  Yet any Roman male could have as many concubines as he desired (slaves), and this was normal throughout the ancient world.  Among the Patriarchs of the Bible, there were both legal wives and concubines (handmaids).  Jacob had two legal wives (Leah & Rachel) and two concubines, and the 12 sons and 1 daughter thus had differing status.  The Emperor of China had one official wife, and as many concubines as he wished.  The sons spent a good deal of time plotting against one another for succession to the throne.