The covenant of sealing a couple

[Rain]

Is the covenant made to God, to the spouse or both when sealing a couple?  

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

Is the covenant made to God, to the spouse or both when sealing a couple?  

It appears to be made to God, since getting divorced does not change the covenant at all and the church teaches that a worthy divorced spouse retains all blessings pertaining to the sealing covenant.

But hopefully other posters will have more information to share on it because I'm not exactly sure how it all works.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

Is the covenant made to God, to the spouse or both when sealing a couple?  

I think the covenant is between the individuals and God.  See here:

Quote

Discussion. Invite students to read and discuss the definition for “covenant” in the Bible Dictionary “Covenant” (p. 651). The following questions may be helpful:

• How would you define covenant?

• Who sets the terms of a covenant with God?

• What do covenants have to do with principles and ordinances of the gospel?

• In what ways do covenants help us live the gospel?

Explain that in a covenant between God and man, both parties take on obligations and both parties receive a benefit. Draw the following chart on the board, including the bold headings only. Ask students to suggest what to write in each column.

By way of analogy, consider a life insurance contract, which involves the insurer (the insurance company providing the policy) the insured (the one who is taking out the policy) and the beneficiary (the party will receive the benefit of the contract).

The sealing covenant, then, would be between the insurer and the insureds, like this:

Insurer = Heavenly Father

Insured = Husband (as to his covenant) and Wife (as to her covenant)

Beneficiary = Husband and Wife

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

I see it as having two parts…an individual covenant with God and a covenant with each other to live faithfully with each other and thus fulfill the covenant with God together, but given if one breaks the covenant with God, it is null and void even if true in commitment to one’s spouse, I may be wrong.

There is also an uneven bit that doesn’t really fit…at least the way it is taught, in that the children are still considered sealed to both parents.  I am not sure how that can work.

Quote

As to the next question, “What happens to the children in the next life when there has been a cancellation of sealing of the parents?” it is understood that in the case of a cancellation of the sealing of the woman to the man, this does not cancel the sealing of the children to the parents, since they were born in the covenant, which is a birthright blessing. They remain in the status of the sealing to their parents and can never be sealed to anyone else. The decision as to with whom they will go will be determined by the Lord in the hereafter.

Regarding being born in the covenant the General Handbook of Instructions states, “Children born in the covenant cannot be sealed to anyone, but belong to their natural parents. This rule is not altered by adoption, consent of the natural parents, request of the child after becoming of age or death of the natural parents.” (P. 101.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1975/12/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-happens-when-a-couple-gets-a-temple-divorce?lang=eng
 

I think this is problematic at times because it is often not intimately tied to worthiness, so that in the case of abuse it can be rationalized by some that as long as the abusive parent eventually repents and the covenant restored, the child must remain sealed to them even if it is the last thing they want to do because they see the parent only with revulsion, having destroyed their childhood and tainting their adult life….and even if they forgive the abuser, they don’t see the abuser as their parent.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Calm

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the covenant is between the individuals and God.  See here:

By way of analogy, consider a life insurance contract, which involves the insurer (the insurance company providing the policy) the insured (the one who is taking out the policy) and the beneficiary (the party will receive the benefit of the contract).

The sealing covenant, then, would be between the insurer and the insureds, like this:

Insurer = Heavenly Father

Insured = Husband (as to his covenant) and Wife (as to her covenant)

Beneficiary = Husband and Wife

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not completely clear.  You are thinking wife covenants with God, husband covenants with God, husband and wife don't covenant with each other - they are just the blessing of the other spouse?

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I see it as having two parts…a covenant with God and a covenant with each other to live faithfully with each other and thus fulfill the covenant with God together, but given if one breaks the covenant with God, it is null and void even if true in commitment to one’s spouse, I may be wrong.

There is also an uneven bit that doesn’t really fit…at least the way it is taught, in that the children are still considered sealed to both parents.  I am not sure how that can work.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1975/12/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-happens-when-a-couple-gets-a-temple-divorce?lang=eng
 

I think this is problematic at times because it is often not intimately tied to worthiness, so that in the case of abuse it can be rationalized by some that as long as the abusive parent eventually repents and the covenant restored, the child must remain sealed to them even if it is the last thing they want to do because they see the parent only with revulsion, having destroyed their childhood and tainting their adult life….and even if they forgive the abuser, they don’t see the abuser as their parent.

This is sort of where the question is coming from.  Spouse 1 no longer has interest in spouse 2 and treats them poorly.  One commenter says that means spouse 1 is breaking covenants so spouse 2 to is let out of the responsibility and can't break them.   

But my thinking was the covenants were only with God about the spouse, not with the spouse though there ought to be a lot of love between them. And that's not to say that God makes you stick with an abuser, but that before divorcing you should talk about your covenants with God and see where He stands. That person thinks the covenants are with God/spouse AND with spouse/spouse. 

Now I'm wondering just what it is. I couldn't remember the words of the sealing so that didn't help. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Rain

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

This is sort of where the question is coming from.  Spouse 1 no longer has interest in spouse 2 and treats them poorly.  One commenter says that means spouse 1 is breaking covenants so spouse to is let out and can't break them.   

But my thinking was the covenants were only with God about the spouse, nit with the spouse though there ought to be a lot of love between them. And that's not to say that God makes you stick with an abuser, but that before divorcing you should talk about your covenants with God and see where He stands. That person thinks the covenants are with God/spouse AND with spouse/spouse. 

Now I'm wondering just what it is. I couldn't remember the words of the sealing so that didn't help. 

This is what it says on the church's website, so that person may be correct.

A husband and wife who are sealed in the temple make sacred covenants with the Lord and with each other. These covenants assure them that their  relationship will continue after this life if they are true to their commitments. They know that nothing, not even death, can separate them. Those who are married should consider their union as their most cherished earthly relationship. After all, a spouse is the only person other than the Lord whom we are commanded to love with all our heart (Doctrine and Covenants 42:22).

Here's the full article.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm not completely clear.  You are thinking wife covenants with God, husband covenants with God, husband and wife don't covenant with each other - they are just the blessing of the other spouse?

Honestly, I'm not sure.  It seems to me that we make covenants with God, and are the beneficiaries of that covenant as to each other.  That was my impression, but it looks like I was in error:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1972/01/in-his-house?lang=eng

Quote

Your marriage in the temple will be a covenant with each other and with your Father in heaven, because you will promise to be true to him as well as to stay true to each other as husband and wife.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1975/06/in-the-house-of-the-lord?lang=eng

Quote

Exaltation in the celestial kingdom is important because only there can we continue to enjoy the family relationship that we’ve established here. It is the part of our eternal journey that the gospel is preparing us for. Your marriage in the temple will be a covenant with each other and with your Father in heaven, because you will promise to be true to him as well as to stay true to each other as husband and wife.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual-2017/chapter-51-doctrine-and-covenants-131-132-1-33?lang=eng

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 132:15–18. “If a man marry him a wife”

The Lord provided two examples of marriage to illustrate the importance of complying with the conditions essential for covenants to be binding in the eternities. These examples illustrate what happens to those who choose not to comply with the Lord’s conditions for eternal marriage (see D&C 132:7). First, the Lord described a marriage in which a man and a woman covenant to be married for this life only (see D&C 132:15–17). Under such an agreement, when one of the spouses dies, the marriage ends. These spouses will “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” (see D&C 132:17). Next, the Lord described a marriage in which a man and a woman “make a covenant with [each other] for time and for all eternity,” but because “that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, … then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word” (D&C 132:18).

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/2017/article/keeping-religion-real

Quote

As its Latin root "to bind" suggests, religion should be a unifying force that brings us together. But fewer people go to church today — a fact as unfavorable for society at large as it is for churches. Houses of worship are an example of what one sociologist calls a “third place” — a community-building space where people spend time in between their first and second places of home and work. Indeed, those who do attend gather regularly in their congregations to teach, serve and comfort each other and their neighbors. They are joined by covenant — with each other and with God — to share sorrows and joys and burdens.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kim-b-clark/embrace-the-plan/

Quote

When two faithful, committed Latter-day Saints love each other and marry in the temple of the Lord, they make a covenant with each other and with Him. If they keep that covenant, repent, love, and serve each other, the Lord Jesus Christ will sanctify their hearts; He will knit their hearts and souls together and bind them to Him.

I learn something new every day!

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 1, 2022 by smac97

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

This is sort of where the question is coming from.  Spouse 1 no longer has interest in spouse 2 and treats them poorly.  One commenter says that means spouse 1 is breaking covenants so spouse to is let out and can't break them.   

But my thinking was the covenants were only with God about the spouse, nit with the spouse though there ought to be a lot of love between them. And that's not to say that God makes you stick with an abuser, but that before divorcing you should talk about your covenants with God and see where He stands. That person thinks the covenants are with God/spouse AND with spouse/spouse. 

Now I'm wondering just what it is. I couldn't remember the words of the sealing so that didn't help. 

On a different page, it says this when describing what happens during a temple sealing:

The sealing ordinance itself is short. The couple kneels at an altar in a special sealing room. The words of the ordinance, like the sacrament prayer, are already written: the sealer (the temple worker who performs the sealing) asks the couple if they take each other as husband and wife. Then he seals them to one another and pronounces blessings upon them. He may also add a few brief words of counsel.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

One commenter says that means spouse 1 is breaking covenants so spouse to is let out and can't break them.   

Meaning what?  That if a spouse has been an adulterer, that it is okay for the other spouse to attempt develop an emotional relationship with someone in anticipation of the divorce…like dating before a divorce is final as if one is single?  Or something less extreme?

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

This is sort of where the question is coming from.  Spouse 1 no longer has interest in spouse 2 and treats them poorly.  One commenter says that means spouse 1 is breaking covenants so spouse to is let out and can't break them.   

In the law, where Party A and Party B have entered into a contract, and where Party A has materially breached the contract, Party B has two options: Party B can continue to adhere to his contractual obligations, or he can rescind the contract based on Party A's breach.

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

But my thinking was the covenants were only with God about the spouse, nit with the spouse though there ought to be a lot of love between them. And that's not to say that God makes you stick with an abuser, but that before divorcing you should talk about your covenants with God and see where He stands. That person thinks the covenants are with God/spouse AND with spouse/spouse. 

Now I'm wondering just what it is. I couldn't remember the words of the sealing so that didn't help. 

I think the sealing ordinance is broad enough to allow for either interpretation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Meaning what?  That if a spouse has been an adulterer, that it is okay for the other spouse to attempt develop an emotional relationship with someone in anticipation of the divorce…like dating before a divorce is final as if one is single?  Or something less extreme?

More of spouse 2 didn't need to worry about whether it was ok to divorce as spouse 1 already broke the sealing covenant.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Rain said:

More of spouse 2 didn't need to worry about whether it was ok to divorce as spouse 1 already broke the sealing covenant.

Are there kids?  For me, a lot would depend on how the covenant was broken and if children were involved as divorce has a massive effect on them.  But as far as sealing covenant requiring them to stay committed to the marriage…got to say “it depends”.  I don’t think it is a simple ‘they broke it, it’s gone’ scenario.  The New Testament talks about the believing spouse having a sanctifying effect on the nonbelieving spouse (1 Cor 7), there may be something of that involved.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are there kids?  For me, a lot would depend on how the covenant was broken and if children were involved as divorce has a massive effect on them.  But as far as sealing covenant requiring them to stay committed to the marriage…got to say “it depends”.  I don’t think it is a simple ‘they broke it, it’s gone’ scenario.  The New Testament talks about the believing spouse having a sanctifying effect on the nonbelieving spouse (1 Cor 7), there may be something of that involved.

Yes, kids.

Honestly from what the spouse says I don't feel the covenant was broken. From what he describes it isn't something I would ever think of as covenant breaking and he didn't say it was - someone else did.  Obviously don't have near enough info to tell. I do think there are serious problems, but I just wouldn't call it covenant breaking.

[The Nehor]

Never mind, wasn’t as relevant as I thought at first.

Edited March 2, 2022 by The Nehor

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, Rain said:

Is the covenant made to God, to the spouse or both when sealing a couple?  

When the questions are asked us in the sealing ceremony to whom are we promising?

And a covenant by definition is a two way agreement - who issues the blessings to you if you fulfill your end of the obligation?

[Calm]

Spouse 1 may have no interest in Spouse 2 because of mental health issues.  If they had become paralyzed physically or unable to speak due to a stroke, no one would see that as breaking covenants.  Unless one knows the cause of loss of interest, I don’t see why one should assume it is breaking one’s covenants.  If it gets to the level of abuse as opposed to disrespect or self centeredness and they are accountable, I think it likely covenants are broken…but that doesn’t mean the marriage isn’t worth trying to redeem if possible….meaning counseling.

 Sounds horribly lonely, I know a couple who went through that for awhile due to one spouse’s anxieties and low self esteem leading them to shut themselves down and withdraw, pushing others away. It did rise to the level of emotional abuse, but the faithful one has a will of iron and is very focused on finding their own balance, being self sufficient, so they stuck with it because of the kids and because awareness of the fundamental decency of the messed up spouse.   The couple’s relationship is better now, companions without any romance, more like battle companions, they survived some pretty crappy stuff together.  The balanced one worked hard to keep a friendship going at least, but can’t convince the other to go to counseling.  Had a very screwed up childhood.

Abuse and refusal to go to counseling is a big red flag to me.  But could save the relationship if counseling was accepted and invested in

[Rain]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

When the questions are asked us in the sealing ceremony to whom are we promising?

And a covenant by definition is a two way agreement - who issues the blessings to you if you fulfill your end of the obligation?

See thats where I was always thinking it was with each spouse and God and not to each other, but smac's quotes seem to say otherwise.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

See thats where I was always thinking it was with each spouse and God and not to each other, but smac's quotes seem to say otherwise.

D&C 132 states we do covenant with each other.  However during the ceremony the only promises are made to God and the blessings come from God.

Interesting.  Perhaps an unspoken covenant?

[Rain]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 132 states we do covenant with each other.  However during the ceremony the only promises are made to God and the blessings come from God.

Interesting.  Perhaps an unspoken covenant?

Is this one of the places where the temple has changed much maybe?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

Is this one of the places where the temple has changed much maybe?

Actually, not that I am aware of.  The main 5 covenants have been changed repeatedly, but the sealing ceremony has mostly stayed the same since Nauvoo (until a year or two ago).

But I'm sure we'll see additional changes to all the covenants.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Lazarus 61 said:

I wasn't aware temple language isn't allowed here.  My apologies for violating a board rule.  I have vowed to not disclose particular signs, symbols and names used in temple ceremonies so I will not do that. Is anything about temple ordinances allowed here?

As Calm said, those things in Church distributed publicly available texts are ok because they are authorized.

Recently the Church allowed the public listing of the 5 main covenants.  They published images of temple clothing.  The Church is allowing more than before.

There are temple specific talks from leaders that can be quoted.  Apostle Orson Pratt published the sealing ceremony but Brigham chastised him for it 

As you said there are elements that should be discussed only within a temple.  That would include ordinance specific wording.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Lazarus 61 said:

I made the covenant with my wife and I would not have made it without her.  You seem to be dismissing that point.  I did say I took "her" when I made the covenant rather than saying "you" in the first person as if I was talking directly to her.  

I think we are both right.  I made the covenant with her and yes I was promising God when I said I do in response to the officiator's question.

I'm fine with both being right.  D&C 132 says we covenant with each other.  The ceremony features us promising the Lord, not each other. I'm good believing both.

It's like the baptismal "covenant".  It's hard to pin down what is promised by either party from the ordinance alone.