I absolutely love the concept of eternal marriage and the sealing of the family of God - and I also love the concept that everyone can be part of that, regardless of their religious affiliation in this life. I understand the emphasis on temple marriage and sealings, but I also believe God will not "put assunder" ANY couple that truly becomes one in this life - that the sealing ordinances are important symbolically but only shadows of what I would call true practical sealing.
A couple can be "temple sealed" without being "truly sealed" - and a couple can be "truly sealed" without being "temple sealed". Frankly, that actually is taught and understood in the Church (even if not as explicitly as I would like), so it doesn't cause me any real angst. Also, frankly, that concept is not taught explicitly in any other Christian denomination (at least, not in the same way as in the LDS Church) - and it's an ideal I believe desperately needs to be taught and internalized by humanity.
Finally, there is a power in taking a symbol and "actualizing" it through a physical performance that includes BOTH body and spirit. The same is true of something like baptism, where there is a tangible event that is "recorded in the body", if you will. I want eternal marriage to be something "embodied" in an ordinance - even as I would like the rhetoric ratcheted down a notch with regard to non-temple marriages (especially of non-Mormons) and the concept divorced more directly from the other temple requirements. (pun intended)
Burn Baby Burn
2 weeks ago
7 comments:
I'm not quite sure I agree that a couple can be "sealed" by virtue of their relationship. D&C 132 seems pretty clear that all earthly agreements,no matter how wonderful and sweet, will end at death. Now, it doesn't mean couples won't eventually be sealed. That's the whole point of doing vicarious sealings in the temple, and why we'll have 1000 years to do such work during the Millennium. However, I don't think God will recognize as "binding" any relationship that is not ultimately sealed by the proper priesthood authority. Can you point me to a source for your position?
I guess what I'm getting at is you could have the most unified, loving couple there is on earth, but if they don't, either in this life or the next, accept Christ and enter into the saving ordinances, then they will not inherit the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. I think that's what our doctrine is. If it isn't, I would gladly try to understand a different viewpoint.
Anonymous, what I'm saying is that the type of people who seal their relationships in practical terms in this life, regardless of whether they are sealed symbolically in the temple, are the very people who will accept the full Gospel of Jesus Christ at some point, whether in this life or the next - that true sealing doesn't happen in the temple but over a lifetime of love and caring service to each other - and that God won't break apart such a relationship when all is said and done.
Temple sealing is a promise of what is already, in some cases, and can be, in other cases, not what automatically is at that moment in the temple.
In other words, I don't disagree with you.
Consider the case of a couple sealed for a year and then one of the spouses dies. No doubt their relationship is different than that of a couple sealed for 60 years. But I think the first couple is just as sealed as the second couple.
I agree - but only if the first couple was on the sealing path, if you will. If it was an abusive relationship, for example, and the surviving spouse had it annulled, it would be no more of a lasting sealing than a quickie wedding in Las Vegas that ended in divorce a year later.
It is truly sad that mainstream Christianity does not believe that people will be married in the next life; that all will be singing praises to God for Eternity. It has something to do with their belief that Christ is married to His church which means no marriage after the coming of Christ.
Post a Comment