No "sealings" in the temple, only marriages?

[Angel]

Someone else pointed this out and I just want to be sure it is true - if you look at the exact wording in the temple ceremony, people are not actually sealed to one another, they are only "married" for time and eternity.
There are individual blessings sealed on patrons, but these are for the individuals

- for the couple, it is only a "marriage" - married, NOT sealed, but married for time and all eternity??
The person who posted this was....rather upset about it

[el-asherah]

Someone else pointed this out and I just want to be sure it is true - if you look at the exact wording in the temple ceremony, people are not actually sealed to one another, they are only "married" for time and eternity.
There are individual blessings sealed on patrons, but these are for the individuals

- for the couple, it is only a "marriage" - married, NOT sealed, but married for time and all eternity??
The person who posted this was....rather upset about it

Can confirm - the temple marriage sealing language is that the couple are "lawfully wedded" together for "time and eternity". Not "sealed" to each other. Blessings are potentially "sealed" upon the individuals, see http://www.ldsendowment.org/sealing.html.

"blessings appertaining unto the new and everlasting covenant (polygamy)" is a vague reference to a future date when the couple can have their "2nd anointing, i.e Calling and Election Made Sure". The 2nd anointing is the real "sealing" that "seals up" to exaltation each individual. The church calls the current temple ordinance a "sealing" and not a "marriage" to obfuscate the fact that the 2nd anointing exists.

This strange language is due to the fact that during Joseph Smith's lifetime - "sealings" meant something completely different than what they do now. "Baptism for the Dead" meant "sealing up" one's dead loved ones unto salvation through baptism. The "Law of Adoption" meant "sealing up" our fellow brethren to Christ to be Adopted Sons of God through Baptism. Plural marriages implied through the "New and Everlasting Covenant" an automatic "2nd anointing" which "sealed up" the couple to exaltation, i.e to be Gods (see D&C 132:26) regardless of any sins. Familial sealings meant for plural marriage couples in the "Covenant" that their children also automatically received an "2nd anointing" which "sealed up" the child to exaltation regardless of any sins.

As defined by Joseph, sealings were not to other people, but rather people were being "sealed up" to Christ/God and salvation or guaranteed exaltation. The only canonized revelation that defined what the sealing power Elijah restored is D&C 128 in which Joseph defines the "sealing power" to be "Baptism for the Dead". Since there is a lack of canonized revelations the definition is not grounded and has change substantially since then.

Brigham Young began the process of redefining "sealing" by redefining the "Law of Adoption" to be a "sealing of men to men", and he began muddying the language. Post succession crisis, Brigham required the brethren to be sealed to other brethren as a temple ordinance in a military like chain of command to Brigham, who claimed he was sealed to Joseph who was sealed to Christ. Brigham also introduced "Adoption into the Covenant" for children not "Born in the Covenant". In the Nauvoo temple before the migration to Utah, plural couples were married for time and eternity (ordinance), and then sealed up to exaltation (2nd anointing ordinance), children could be "Adopted into the Covenant" (ordinance), children were also sealed up to exaltation (2nd anointing ordinance)

Over the next 80+ years, the Law of Adoption "sealings" were phased out, polygamy was phased out, 2nd anointings (sealing) for children were phased out, and general use of the 2nd anointings (sealing) for couples was phased out. This created a doctrinal vacuum where the concept of "sealings" had to eventually morph into being "sealed to" your spouse and "sealed to" your father, who was "sealed to" his father, i.e. a long unbroken chain all the way back to Adam.

What the modern church practices now is not a sealing but rather "Lawful Marriages" for "time and eternity", and for children "Adoption into the Covenant". The church calls these ordinances "sealings" to obfuscate the polygamous roots and the fact that the 2nd anointing is the real sealing ordinance. The modern church no longer has Joseph style "sealings", i.e. "automatic" 2nd anointing for couples married in the "Covenant" (as is currently specified by D&C 132:26) which "sealed them up" to exaltation, and 2nd anointings for their children which "sealed them up" to exaltation.

I should point out that Joseph was never sealed (in his lifetime) to his parents nor his children in the modern church's family unit sense, the concept of "sealed to other people" did not yet exist.

There are NO canonized revelations anywhere describing what the modern church currently teaches as "sealing together" parents and children into an eternal family unit nor are there any canonized revelations anywhere that remove the sealing (2nd anointing) from an eternal marriage.

[wtfluff]

What's the difference between a "sealing," and being "wedded" in the "Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant" for "time and all eternity?"

(I'd guess those two things are one and the same to any believer.)

And yes: el-asherah's reply is much more explanatory than mine, and a lot more correct, as we were typing basically at the same time. I remember hearing the same things about Joseph. Did he ever really use the word "sealing" to describe his "marriage" practices?

[Palerider]

Technically the phrase stating that the couple are "sealed" to one another isn't used. As you stated the officiator does marry them for "time and all eternity", and blessings are sealed upon them both.

Just another case where the promises the church puts forth are compromised by the actual verbiage in the ordinance.

I'm sure if this became a large enough issue to enough members, the wording would be changed and the church "culture" would be blamed.

[Thoughtful]

Someone else pointed this out and I just want to be sure it is true - if you look at the exact wording in the temple ceremony, people are not actually sealed to one another, they are only "married" for time and eternity.
There are individual blessings sealed on patrons, but these are for the individuals

- for the couple, it is only a "marriage" - married, NOT sealed, but married for time and all eternity??
The person who posted this was....rather upset about it

Perhaps we have a mutual friend.

[Corsair]

The temple ordinances seem to have been assembled by idealists who were trying to sound like theologians without actually being theologians. In any case, the ordinances don't sound like they were produced by pastors who lead a congregation, because the word "love" does not actually occur in any official verbiage in the temple. The temple sealer might attempt to give some words of counsel to the new couple which includes the love they should share. But this is ad hoc counsel and is not at all part of the ceremony. When you do proxy sealings with your spouse you might go the whole evening without hearing the word "love".

[moksha]

El-asherah's post up above contained information I had never read before. Thanks for posting it.

The transformation of myth through time is so very interesting. Given enough time maybe they will restore the fullness of silly walks in the ceremonies. When the presiding Temple worker calls out "Everybody walk like a Reformed Egyptian", those present will all know exactly what to do.

[Lloyd Christmas]

Yes,El-asherah, thank you for that post. Really interesting information.

Sealing how the church does it makes more sense knowing the history.

[Random]

In the old days, it was taught that only the Holy Spirit of Promise could seal a couple together, not the temple ceremony.