🦭 Sealing¶
Estimated time to read: 31 minutes
What does sealing actually mean?
Probably not that. But, irrespective of the religious connotation, I'll be including some GIFs of seals periodically, because seals are the best animal. Fight me.
Eternal Marriage¶
Sealing is "[an] ordinance performed in the temple eternally uniting a husband and wife, or children and their parents."
— Sealing, Topics & Questions, churchofjesuschrist.org
🤔 My understanding of the English language is such that we have a subject and a qualifying adjective. Marriage and Eternal Marriage seems like a good example of this. Life and Eternal Life also fits. To me, I find it odd that a religious institution thinks we need a new word or phrase when English does that work for us. We already have an effective way to communicate that "eternal marriage" is different from plain ol' regular marriage, and we know this by sticking the qualifier "eternal" before it. But within Mormonism, we have a completely different word to communicate the same thing... maybe. It makes me think that maybe this is meant to obfuscate something that isn't socially acceptable.
In our Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness, a husband and wife can be together forever. The authority to unite families forever is called the sealing power. It is the same power that Jesus gave to His Apostles during His ministry on earth (Matthew 16:19). An eternal marriage is therefore called a sealing. Children born or adopted into such eternal marriages can also be sealed to their families forever.
Unlike marriages that last only “until death do you part,” temple sealings ensure that death cannot separate loved ones. For marriages to continue after death, they must be sealed in the right place and with the right authority. The right place is the temple and the right authority is the priesthood of God (Doctrine and Covenants 132:7, 15–19).
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.
— About Temple Sealings, churchofjesuschrist.org
Follow that link to Matt 16:19, and tell me how the idea of a marriage being made eternal relates to the verse of Jesus telling 1 (one) apostle about binding on earth. Also, please only read verses 7 and 15-19 of D&C 132, and not the rest of it, pls thx
The idea of marriage persisting after death sounds romantic and appealing. No sarcasm here; I love my wife, and I like the idea of staying with her after our mortality expires. The above statements— promising that marriage can persist after death— suggests that there is some kind of annulment if the marriage isn't done properly. Who does that? The only being I could anticipate having that influence would be God. What the hell, God? Why would you split up marriages if your entire intention is for us to have joy? The null case compared to being sealed by the right authority assumes that God is going to forcibly divorce you from your spouse if you didn't get married by the right subgroup of people between 1830 and [current year], or hope that same subgroup does it for you after you die.
Required for Exaltation¶
The covenant of eternal marriage is also needed for exaltation. Exaltation is eternal life—the kind of life God lives. He is perfect. He lives in great glory. He has all knowledge, all power, and all wisdom. He is loving, kind, and merciful. He is the Heavenly Father of every person on earth. We can someday become like Him. This is exaltation.
Exaltation is the greatest gift that God can give His children (Doctrine and Covenants 14:7). It is the reward for all those who prove faithful to the Lord. Those who receive and keep essential covenants with God will forever live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.
— About Temple Sealings, churchofjesuschrist.org
So... does this mean there's a difference between sealing and eternal marriage? We established that "sealing" means "eternal marriage," and now we're just calling it eternal marriage. In the same page, we've changed terms back, away from Mormon dogma. If we're setting the expectation that the two mean the same thing, I would anticipate sticking with the newer term to demonstrate its usage in conversation. This isn't a contradiction necessarily, but feels out of place to me.
Also, consider the opening definition of eternal marriage being a prerequisite for eternal life. The only people who will live forever are those who get married in this prescribed way. Meaning, if you don't get married, you will die. Meaning, if you don't want to get married for whatever reason (you know, exercising agency,) have fun being dead for eternity! Or, if you don't qualify to be married by Mormon standards (drank coffee or happened to be anything other than heterosexual,) you're shit out of luck.
I seem to recall the pre-mortal war in heaven being about agency. One plan took away your ability to really choose for yourself, and the other granted free will. It seems that in the eternal scale, in the context of exaltation & marriage, you still don't have a choice, not really. This teaching means that agency has a very limited scope. In the grand scheme with an eternal perspective, you either comply or you die. I suppose you could still choose, but... is it really choice if it's so authoritarian?
Remember the scriptural quote a moment ago, saying that exaltation / eternal life is the greatest gift from God? Am I just being pedantic and difficult if I don't think this qualifies as "something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation"?
The coming of Elijah was a necessary preparation for the Second Coming of the Savior.
“The hearts of the children of men will have to be turned to the fathers, and the fathers to the children, living or dead, to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. If Elijah did not come, the whole earth would be smitten.”
“Elias is a forerunner to prepare the way, and the spirit and power of Elijah is to come after, holding the keys of power, building the Temple to the capstone, placing the seals of the Melchizedek Priesthood upon the house of Israel, and making all things ready; then Messiah comes to His Temple, which is last of all. … Elijah was to come and prepare the way and build up the kingdom before the coming of the great day of the Lord.”
“The world is reserved unto burning in the last days. He shall send Elijah the prophet, and he shall reveal the covenants of the fathers in relation to the children, and the covenants of the children in relation to the fathers.”
“How shall God come to the rescue of this generation? He will send Elijah the prophet. … Elijah shall reveal the covenants to seal the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers.”
— Chapter 26: Elijah and the Restoration of the Sealing Keys, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith
That is a direct quote from the teaching manual.
Dear reader, can you simplify what in the hell that segment means? This is so incredibly vague to me. Elijah has to show up, just cause. Earth will be smitten if he doesn't. By whom? God? What the hell, God? What does any of that have to do with sealing? Why is Joseph treating Elias and Elijah as if they're two separate people, when Elias is the Greek Hellenized version of the Hebrew name Elijah? FAIR's explanation does not make this better.
These are the scriptural passages used to justify sealing as a religious ordinance. Turning hearts of fathers to children sounds poetic, I guess. If it can be used both to assure multi-generational families existing beyond mortal life, but can also be the only scriptural passage to quote over the pulpit on Father's Day, then it means nothing. Hallmark greeting cards have foiled God's eternal plan. The above quotes are a word salad of symbolism that sounds profound at face value. I've re-read those a dozen times, and haven't gotten any closer to understanding how this relates to marriage. But it sure does sound important somehow.
Nonrepudiation¶
The promise that our families can be together after death gives more meaning in life. It encourages us to be faithful and loyal. It improves and enriches our family relationships. It helps us find joy and hope as we deal with the challenges of life. And knowing that we can be together again brings comfort and peace as we deal with the suffering or death of loved ones.
The sealing ordinance is a gift from God to His children. It enables us to return to live with Him and all of our loved ones forever. It offers marvelous blessings for this life and the next. It is a constant reminder that families are central to God’s plan and to our happiness here and in eternity. It provides peace, hope, and joy for all who faithfully receive it.
— About Temple Sealings, churchofjesuschrist.org
I don't understand how sealing brings more meaning to life. This, like numerous other claims that the church makes, could only be demonstrated after you're dead. There is no benefit to sealing while you're alive— it takes effect after you die. It encourages us to be loyal and faithful? As opposed to all those filthy heathens who have no loyalty to their spouses, the whole world over? Don't you think that's insulting to the deep affections felt in other humans? Why would non-Mormons get married at all, if faithfulness and loyalty mean nothing?
Deceased people can't come back to church leadership to say "hey, you lied! This ordinance didn't actually help anything, God divorced us anyway!" Nor could they verify the claims by saying "Yeah, it's legit, and we're still married.. and dead." It's non-falsifiable. There's no way for us to prove it, and there's no repudiation, recompense, or accountability if the verbal assurance doesn't pan out. "Just trust me, bro, doing what I say here will pay off after you're dead and can't talk back to me."
Posthumous Sealing¶
The Lord knows that not all of His children will have the opportunity to be married in this life. He has promised that all who accept the gospel and strive to keep their covenants will have the opportunity to be married and have children either in this life or the next.
— About Temple Sealings, churchofjesuschrist.org
🤦♂️ Herein lies my biggest hang-up with the Plan of Salvation. If eternal marriage is a saving ordinance that must be done here in mortality, but there's a literal promise that you can do it in the next life, then it isn't a saving ordinance. If we have a finite amount of time to spend here in mortality, but we have all of eternity after we die, then why do we have to do any ordinance here on earth? We're taught we'll be resurrected, Satan will be bound, and literally have infinite time to do everything. If there's an out, then it isn't a requirement for our mortal life.
Earlier I mentioned the null case for eternal marriage meaning that God will forcibly divorce us, unless the right subgroup of people perform posthumous sealings for us in the temple. That further weakens the argument that it's a requirement. If it can be done in behalf of someone else, and we've got all of eternity to get through the backlog, then what's the point?
Ostensibly, we could have one person iterate through baptisms in behalf of everyone else, or one couple be sealed by proxy for everyone else. After all, they have all of eternity to do it. Or, perform the ordinance once in behalf of all of humankind in one grand gesture, rather than sequentially. I think there's even a religious term in Christianity for a designated sole performer of a saving ordinance, actually— something like "the anointed one," close to the Greek word Kristos, anglicized as Christ, the Redeemer, the Messiah...
Other Definitions¶
To confirm or solemnize. In the early 1830s, revelations often adopted biblical usage of the term seal; for example, “sealed up the testimony” referred to proselytizing and testifying of the gospel as a warning of the approaching end time. JS explained in October of that year that high priests had power to “seal up the Saints unto eternal life.” Similarly, a November 1831 revelation indicated that those being sent forth to preach at that time had the power “to seal both on earth & in heaven, the unbelieving and rebellious.” JS and other church members also used the word seal to indicate that religious proceedings, prayers, blessings, anointings, or marriages solemnized by the proper authority would be recognized and efficacious in heaven. Such sealings were performed in many ways: by the laying of hands on the person’s head, with uplifted hands, by prayer, by announcement, with hosannas or amens, or by combinations of these. Martyrs were also described as sealing “their testimony with their blood.”
— Sealing, Glossary, Joseph Smith Papers Project
Right, so I count six different usages of the term in this glossary entry:
- Solemnize
- Testify
- Ensure eternal life
- Authenticate something both in mortality and afterlife
- Authenticate something in the eyes of God
- Martyrdom
This doesn't match closely to the definition I showed earlier that "An eternal marriage is therefore called a sealing." Why did we choose a word that already has definition, including religious connotations? I suppose one could argue that since the phrasing is not "a sealing is therefore eternal marriage," the argument still stands?
... Are there other usages of this term?
Sealed Records¶
Early Latter-day Saints used the word seal in several different but related ways. Seals were used to make contracts or agreements official. Seals of ink, wax, or embossed stamps validated the signatures on a contract. Many Bible readers interpreted passages mentioning the term seal as meaning something was rendered official in the eyes of God.
— Sealing, Church History Topics, churchofjesuschrist.org
My first reaction to this description is that a wax seal is meant to indicate that a document was unread, unaltered, untarnished. Validating and authenticating a signature does sound like an embossed stamp, but the scholar who is only remembered for his inability to read a sealed book probably didn't mean "I cannot read a document that is official." The notorious passage in Revelation describes "a book with ... seven seals," along with corresponding symbolism. To me, I see the relationship between "seal" as in "protected," not so much with "this scroll is 7x more official than the next scroll." Maybe I should think along the lines of the modern idiom "seal of approval." In which case... We already have half a dozen usages if "seal," so couldn't we call it stamped or embossed, to disambiguate?
My next reaction to the above passage is... why is God worried about something on earth being "rendered official"? Why is God willing to annul marriages in the first place, simply on the basis that it wasn't done by someone He gave a thumbs-up to?
What's that? You tried to reproduce Jesus' communion as you read it in the New Testament? Well, there weren't any pubescent fourteen-year-olds with freshly purchased Wonderbread, so that ceremony means nothing to God 😤 You should have listened to those weirdo's in white shirts on bikes.
Cross-generational sealing¶
When Joseph Smith began to introduce temple ordinances in Nauvoo, he spoke of their power to bind, or seal, together people across generations. In letters to the Church containing inspired teachings on baptisms for the dead, Joseph spoke of proxy baptisms as an ordinance that forged a “welding link” between the generations by extending salvation to the dead. He further noted that, in one sense, the ordinance had a “sealing and binding power.” As the Saints entered the waters of baptism for their deceased family members, they bound together generations within an extended covenant family.
— Sealing, Baptism for the Dead and Eternal Families, Church History Topics, churchofjesuschrist.org
... So I'm going to get eternally married to my great-great-aunt? Again, the null case here is that God is going to nullify the very structure of your family unless you get baptized properly. "Families can be together forever" is a refrain of the church on the surface, but the further I look into it, it seems that "families will not be together forever, unless you do what we say." What the hell, God?
Elijah restored the sealing keys—the power and authority to bind in heaven all ordinances performed on earth.
[Source]
Through the sealing power, families can be sealed for time and all eternity, and sacred ordinances can be performed for the dead.
[Source]
Clear as day, I tell you. Sealing is so special that it means eternal marriage, somehow is related to Elijah by means that I can only call convoluted; it can also mean to solemnize, testify, grant eternal life (but also is a prerequisite for eternal life,) authenticate worldly ceremonies for God's convenience, being killed for your beliefs, making something unreadable, and also lets you stay with Aunt Sally forever. What's next, getting sealed to a church leader just for status? That really would be something, wouldn't it?
Adoption Sealings¶
After Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young and other members of the Twelve performed temple sealings in Nauvoo and later in Salt Lake City. Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles officiated thousands of sealings. They sealed couples together in marriage and sealed children to parents when the parents were sealed after their children were born. At the time, however, Latter-day Saints were not yet sealed to their deceased parents who had not joined the Church in this life. Rather, some Saints participated in “adoption” sealings that bound them to other adult Latter-day Saints, nearly always prominent Church leaders. These sealings connected them to others whom they knew had accepted the restored gospel covenants. For the next 50 years, many complex adoption networks grew out of temple sealings, connecting friends and peers as if they were expanded families.
This practice continued until 1894, when President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that limited adoptive sealings and instead focused on sealing marriages and parent-child relationships.
— Sealing, Adoption Sealings, Church History Topics, churchofjesuschrist.org
Oh. It was Doctrine until it wasn't anymore? Good thing we have a living prophet who obtains, understands, and disseminates God's will to us so that we don't have to change or revert years down the road.
... If this practice started under Brigham Young, explicitly stated "after Joseph Smith's death," uh... does... does that mean that Joseph didn't get sealed to his parents or children? This whole idea stemmed from Joseph's revelation, right? So... Who did he get sealed to?
Polygamous Sealing¶
I had been told numerous times as a practicing Mormon that Joseph Smith was not polygamous, and any such accusations are just faith-destroying lies from embittered, untrustworthy people. This is something that I cannot demonstrate or prove, since it is my own experience through my teenage years. Something that I can demonstrate or prove today is that, whether you prefer the term 'sealed' or 'married,' Joseph did that to a lot more women than just Emma. In fact, the timeline of all of this is something I would deem noteworthy.
Church History Biographical Database¶
Joseph Smith Jr. has a page in the Church History Biographical Database. Go on and check that link, and verify that it is, in fact, a subdomain of churchofjesuschrist.org. Next, in your web browser, be it mobile or desktop, perform a search ("find in page" on mobile) for "married". At the time of writing this, the search results include Joseph's marital status while serving a mission, for some reason, so adjust your search query to include a space after ("married "). I see 30 results. First is Emma, thankfully. Don't overlook the other twenty-nine other women listed here, though.
Joseph Smith Papers¶
I've got some notes describing why I consider this a primary source, if you are inclined to disagree.
Searching JSPP's site either internally or externally shows me 27 results for names and dates of women sealed to Joseph Smith. Following the links for these interim contents shows that these events are listed in References > Events; your mileage may vary, but filtering the event timeline to the keyword "seal" comes up empty for me. Manually opening the year and month, using 1842 June as an example, does list 29 June 1842 as the date Joseph got sealed to Eliza R. Snow. These pages for those events have footnotes with sources cited, if you're interested to read more specifics.
If you're up for it, you could open each year and respective month, and search the text on your browser window for "sealed to JS" to examine the results from that angle. I don't expect it to be meaningfully different than proper searches. I find this notorious for a variety of reasons; among them, the recollection of being told Joseph wasn't into polygamy, but for the context of this page of notes, we have names, dates, and sources for sealing which appears to be a justification for plural marriage. After all, the first few excerpts shown in this page emphasize that sealing is meant to bind families together, including parents to children.
... Hey, wait a minute... Have we found records of Joseph, the prophet who received the authority to seal families, being sealed to his own parents? Or to his own children?
FamilySearch¶
Genealogy is important in Mormonism. (1, 2, 3, 4) I don't really see the same value in it that the church leadership does, perhaps it's because I'm some uncultured young whippersnapper. The church likes genealogy so much that they launched a website dedicated for just that purpose. As one might expect, they do have a page for the prophet of the restoration, Joseph Smith Junior. Since this site is owned and operated by the church, they're well within their rights to divulge as much or as little information they choose to. Imagining myself in the position of a common layperson who casually stumbled upon Joseph's page here, I think I wouldn't find anything out of place.
Based on my exploration of Joseph's FamilySearch page, it appears that his records of temple ordinances (including sealing) require a login to obtain. At the time of writing these notes, I'm still a member with valid records. (I don't know if that will change in the future 🤞) I do see that the site's privacy policy forbids me from outright copying the data and providing it here. What I will do instead is describe the information I have access to, and urge you to independently reproduce the same results.
I see dates for baptism & confirmation, both in 1829. Initiatory & endowments in 1842. So far this lines up with the approximate dates I remember from my days in seminary. Next, Joseph is sealed to his parents in... 1897? He died in 1844. Joseph's page doesn't explicitly list being sealed to children, but to his parents. Following this pattern, I navigate to the main About page, which lists Joseph's descendants, who surely have had their ordinances done.
Joseph's Children¶
Joseph & Emma had many of their children pass away before reaching adulthood. I'll acknowledge how somber that reality is, but it isn't the focus of today's exploration. Alvin Smith, Joseph's firstborn, died in infancy— listed as having been born and deceased the same day of 15 June 1828. Alvin was sealed to Joseph & Emma on... 26 January 1978? That's... 150 years later?
I hope the temples aren't just recycling names to go through. The whole reason the site has the seven-character ID string is to differentiate between the 1,479,050 hits I found for "alvin smith" born in 1828. I have encountered anecdotal claims that the temples do recycle names, but don't find them reliable enough to point to. Third normal form relational databases should have a distinctive primary key, as is demonstrated in each record here. If the names are being recycled, and Alvin has been sealed more than once, maybe 1978 is the most recent iteration? I don't think that makes the possibility more palatable.
Surely someone thought to do this in under 150 years? Maybe Joseph himself, while he was alive? Joseph Smith III (1832 - 1914,) notorious for heading one of the LDS church's offshoots away from Brigham Young, was also sealed to his parents Joseph & Emma on 26 January 1978.
Joseph Murdock Smith, living from 1831 - 1832, was sealed to Joseph & Emma on 24 June 1992. I was alive for that. What the fuck. Julia Murdock Smith, 1831 - 1880, was sealed to Joseph & Emma on 13 September 1994.
Joseph Smith Jr was so emotionally shaken by his brother's passing that his untimely death appears to be a catalyzing factor in receiving D&C 137, the revelation concerning posthumous saving ordinances. Joseph named his firstborn after his late brother. For that to have weighed so heavily on his mind, I would think this would be among the first things Joseph wants to use the sealing power & authority on, to ensure that his family is reunited after death.
Again: The doctrine or sealing power of Elijah is as follows:—If you have power to seal on earth and in heaven, then we should be wise. The first thing you do, go and seal on earth your sons and daughters unto yourself, and yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory.”
— Chapter 26, Elijah and the Restoration of the Sealing Keys, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith
... Well, he didn't seem to be in a hurry to do it for his own family. Who did he get sealed to, while living?
Are you ready for this situation to get worse? I hope you are, because it's about to get worse.
Joseph's Wives¶
In the interest of brevity, I won't copy over the names and dates— I think we've already established that he was married & sealed to numerous women. But I will tell you that Joseph's FamilySearch page, searching "sealing to spouse completed" yields 30 results. (Searching "sealed to spouse" shows redundant hits from the mouseover tooltip; don't use that number.)
I'm not clear how Joseph's "sealing to spouse" rows are sorted; it doesn't appear chronological, alphabetical, or by DoB. Once again, I'm uneasy with copying all of my findings to demonstrate here, but if you were to put those names & dates into a spreadsheet application, you could sort them yourself. When I do this, I find that Joseph was first sealed to Fanny Alger, not long after the infamous "dirty, nasty, filthy affair" that he was accused of being part of. Then is Louisa Beaman, who... hey wait a minute, she was sealed in 1841, but wasn't baptized until 1843? Being a baptized member wasn't required in order to be sealed in the temple??
Next is two Huntington sisters, then Agnes Coolbrith, Mary Rollins, then... um... Where's Emma?
Yeah, Emma is in there, but... if you're going to tell me that this sealing power is meant to ensure a legal marriage is official in the eyes of God after mortal death, tell me why in the ever-loving shit did Joseph get sealed to twenty-two other women before getting sealed to his actual wife? Was he just practicing? I see the sealing date for Joseph to Emma as 28 May 1843. You go look at those dates and count how many appear before Emma. I count 22.
Secrecy¶
Don't forget that sealing just means eternal marriage, and eternal marriage definitely is monogamous.
Having reminded ourselves that there isn't anything nefarious happening, what does the Joseph Smith Papers Project say about the historical context around D&C 132? Establishing the context alone takes 2,790 words, not counting the footnotes. (Including the footnotes bumps us up to 7,569 words!)
Below are a variety of direct quotes that I found to be of interest. Remember, this is all just to preface a revelation that plain ol' hetero monogamous marriage will persist after death.
By summer 1843, JS had entered into about twenty-five confidential sealings, or plural unions.
JS’s first and only publicly recognized wife, Emma Smith, showed marked ambivalence toward her husband’s secret practice of plural marriage, at times rejecting the doctrine and at other times reluctantly accepting it.
The range including "rejecting" and "reluctantly accepting" isn't what I would call ambivalence, but okay
Plural marriage ran counter to both social customs and existing laws. Illinois law included an antibigamy statute.
Mm? What's that? It "ran counter to existing laws"? Are you insinuating that maybe Joseph was incarcerated not just on the grounds of religious persecution as I had been raised to believe? Does this mean that judging him from modern social standards, where polygamy is frowned upon, might not be so unjust after all? Should we still "give [him] a break"?
Here's the long, spicy bit. I've added line breaks for readability, but this is copied directly from the above link:
Emma Smith struggled with JS’s new marriages in the months leading up to July 1843. Since the beginning of 1843, JS was sealed to at least thirteen additional wives, most of whom were married to him without Emma’s knowledge.
Although details regarding Emma’s reactions to JS’s practice of plural marriage prior to 1843 are scarce, she evidently came to accept the doctrine, albeit temporarily, by May of that year, on the condition that she could choose the women to whom JS would be sealed. That month, she selected Eliza and Emily Partridge, who were then ages twenty-three and nineteen and living in the Smith household, as potential marriage partners to JS. In fact, JS had already been sealed to the sisters two months earlier.
JS and the Partridge sisters sought to avoid confrontation by repeating the marriages, with Emma’s blessing, as if for the first time. Likely during the same month, Emma suggested JS marry Maria and Sarah Lawrence, ages nineteen and sixteen or seventeen, another pair of sisters who were living in the Smith household. However, Emily Partridge later testified that Emma became embittered “soon after” the Partridge sisters’ second wedding ceremony.
"man, Emma got real bitchy after she found out that her husband got married to me behind her back, and then again for a second time just for theatrics. Can't imagine why."
It sure looks to me like the power & authority to seal spouses is as far as Joseph had thought it through. Sealing was originally about justifying polygamy and nothing else. Joseph Smith was sealed to twenty-two other women before he was ever sealed to Emma, and he was never sealed to his parents or his own children while he was alive. That’s how real sealing was to Joseph. That’s how important it was. It wasn’t about family at all. He used it to give legitimacy to his adulterous affairs. Not being sealed to your parents or your children is no tragedy, not according to the church doctrines as they were originally taught and practiced. The way the doctrine is taught these days is just a retcon, like almost everything else in the church.
But if you look up supporting documents in the church today, sealing is just a happy, eternal marriage.
In Defense¶
The next several quotes come from Lesson 20, Plural Marriage, Foundations of the Restoration Teacher Manual. I wish for all to receive it. All arise click on that link.
Under the heading "The practice of plural marriage was a test of faith..."
Explain to students that there is much we do not know about the practice of plural marriage in the early Church. For instance, our current understanding of the term sealing is not exactly the same as the understanding of this term in the 1840s, when the practice of sealing was still new and some aspects of the practice were not completely understood. We hear the term sealing and automatically think of marriage, but for Joseph Smith and the early Saints, sealing did not always mean marriage in the full sense, meaning to live together as husband and wife. Many details of the practice of plural marriage were kept confidential, and historical records simply do not answer all of our questions...
You may want to remind students that as they study about plural marriage, they should remember the pattern that the Prophet Joseph Smith followed in his gospel learning. He studied, pondered, and prayed to gain knowledge. They should also remember that much unreliable information about plural marriage exists on the Internet and in many print sources. Some authors who write about the Church and its history present information out of context, or they include partial truths that can be misleading. The intent of some of these writings is to destroy faith.
"Look, we're totally in the dark here. The prophet of the Restoration taught that this is required of us for salvation, but was super vague about it, and there aren't any reliable documents or teachings. This is such a non-issue that we have an entire lesson in this teacher's manual dedicated to how little information we have. Don't look online, though, that's where bad people are." Gotta get ahead of those rumors— we're the only trustworthy source of information, and we assert that it's fine. Don't ask anyone else.
"marriage[...], meaning to live together as husband and wife" is such a strange choice of words. That's what marriage means? That's all that married heterosexual couples do, now that they have a certificate? Is this lesson meant for seven-year-old children?
If what I'm presenting to you is missing some context that will make it feel less egregious, by all means, scroll down to the comment section and tell me. If God wants people to believe His prophet, He's done a pretty shit job of making that prophet sound trustworthy. There's only the salvation of eight billion people on the line, no big deal 🤷♂️
Other Reading Material¶
- Joseph Smith's Polygamy.org: My initial reaction to that source is, with a name like that it has to be some strongly-worded condemnation of Joseph as some villain. Digging into it, the site appears to contain research from Brian C. Hales, who appears to be a respected historian of early church matters. I'll call the site a solid secondary source for info.
- A Careful Examination has sorted names & dates, along with some additional insights