Sealing Explanation

by: Guy Templeton

May 29, 2014

I attended some sealings at the temple recently.  During a break, the sealer noted that when a woman is being sealed to a man, she is asked to “give herself” to the man, and “receive him unto herself”, but the man is only asked to receive, not to give.  (In a previous post, I mentioned the same thing.)  The sealer asked if anyone knew why.  Nobody knew.

The sealer explained that in ancient Israel, women didn’t have a choice of who to marry.  In the sealing ceremony, they specifically use their free agency to give themselves to the man of their own free will and choice.  The man has no free agency–he has to receive the woman, but the woman does not have to receive the man.

What do you think of the sealer’s explanation?

Tags: , , , ,

45 Responses to Sealing Explanation

  1. howard on May 29, 2014 at 8:21 AM

    Sounds like spin to me!

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 22

  2. Justin on May 29, 2014 at 8:28 AM

    What do you think of the sealer’s explanation?

    That it’s a post hoc justification of something that’s obviously sexist.

    The phraseology is based in the fact that “adultery” [as a legal term] was defined as a married woman having sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband — meaning it was not “adultery” if a married man had intercourse with an unmarried woman. Which means that it was all about a man’s “property rights”, which [at the time] included a woman [see, e.g., the father handing off the daughter to the husband].

    She “gives herself” to the man and so if she is sexual with somebody else then that “infringes” on his “right” to sexual intercourse with her. He does not “give himself” to her because male sexuality hasn’t been as “regulated” [historically] as female sexuality.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 20

  3. Benjamin on May 29, 2014 at 8:43 AM

    I’m inclined to think it’s just 19th century sexism. I was fortunate enough to sit through enough sealings before I got married that by the time I got to my own sealing, I’d already decided that, for my part, I was adding “give yourself unto her” in my own mind when I was asked the question.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  4. Martha on May 29, 2014 at 8:52 AM

    polygamy

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 12

  5. New Iconoclast on May 29, 2014 at 9:10 AM

    I’m with Howard and Martha, and I get Justin’s comment as well. Although I do give a great deal of credence to the idea that it’s much more respectful of a woman’s agency to allow her to answer the question, rather than the traditional non-LDS wedding question, “Who gives this woman to be wedded to this man?”.

    Since words do or should have meaning, we should give these words meaning, and be pleased that they go as far as they go. For 19th-century Americans, the Latter-day Saints were pretty forward-thinking on women’s issues. In many ways, we’re still kind of stuck there institutionally; we’re still forward-thinking Victorians in the world of cellphones and space stations.

    Where the sealer’s explanation falls through, of course, is that the man does also have agency; he is also asked to receive (and presumably could refuse), but is not required to give himself to continue with the ceremony, as is the woman. He is bound, as are they both, by the law of chastity and the Church’s (current) one man-one woman policy, but it could be more specific in the ceremony.

    The door is thus left open for the potential reintroduction of polygyny, if you want to get picky. I think that’s an unlikely possibility, but as Martha seems to allude, that’s the wording.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  6. Kristine A on May 29, 2014 at 10:19 AM

    I’ve heard a sealer say the explanation is because in the next life she will get a choice to reject him for whatever reason, but he will never have the choice to reject her. I don’t know how some people take something sexist, and in an attempt to assuage their minds, make it somehow even more unequal to justify it. It makes no sense.

    Helllo. It’s about “traditional marriage.” Traditional marriage is where a woman is property and subordinate. Traditional mormon marriage includes polygamy. I still remember in my FamHist class at Ricks being taught “Men’s purpose is to govern, that’s why they get multiple wives, to govern them. Women’s purpose is to nurture, and they can’t have more than one husband because then they’d have two governors.” I thought he was a genius.

    Glad I woke up.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 10

  7. hawkgrrrl on May 29, 2014 at 10:29 AM

    The language is incredibly similar to the language in D&C 132, meaning – it’s about polygamy.

    61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

    62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 11

  8. Benjamin on May 29, 2014 at 10:52 AM

    Perhaps I’m either naive or stubborn, but I don’t see why polygamy prevents a man from giving himself to his wife/wives. Well, perhaps I can see it in the property context, but plural marriage wasn’t strictly about property was it?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  9. New Iconoclast on May 29, 2014 at 11:54 AM

    Benjamin, I don’t think that plural marriage was strictly about property, but in some senses it can be said to treat women that way. She gives herself to one man; she becomes his. He retains ownership of himself, and can share what he chooses to share with multiple women.

    Once I’ve given you something, it becomes yours; I can’t take it back and give it to someone else. The idea of a man giving himself to his (singular) wife is minimally acceptable as a reciprocation if we accept both “givings” as symbolic of exclusive commitment. The idea of a man giving himself to (plural) wives is nearly nonsensical. Would that be joint with rights of survivorship? Tenants in common? I speak partially in jest with that last, but realistically, he’s reserving himself and sharing bits out.

    D&C 132, as Hawk points out, makes the “ownership” part explicit – and it only goes one way.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  10. DavidH on May 29, 2014 at 12:42 PM

    I think it relates to polygyny this way: when a woman gives herself to a man, she gives all of her self to the man. There is nothing left for her to give to any other man, and thus she can only be sealed to one man. A man does not “”give himself” (i.e., all of himself) to one wife, because that would prevent him from taking another wife. I.e., one can give oneself to only one person, but one can receive more than one person. I do believe the language of the ordinance will change at some point to be more equal.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  11. IDIAT on May 29, 2014 at 12:58 PM

    “Giving away the bride is an antiquated tradition from the days when women were their father’s property until they got married and became their husband’s property. The bride was literally given away in exchange for a bride price or dowry. Today, fortunately, most people don’t view women this way. Yet, “giving away the bride” can still be an important opportunity to give thanks to your parents and honor tradition.” I’m sort of with the sealer. By asking the question this way, we are ensuring the bride is, in fact, giving herself away. It may be a throwback to old cultural norms, but I don’t think there is anything nefarious about it.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  12. IDIAT on May 29, 2014 at 1:00 PM

    For those of us bent on the plural sealing aspect, remember that we seal deceased women to all the husbands they’ve had in mortality. Therefore, in fact, a woman (presuming she accepts the vicarious sealing) does “give” herself to more than one husband vis-a-vis plural sealings.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  13. IDIAT on May 29, 2014 at 1:04 PM

    Finally, remember the woman is also asked if she “receives” her husband. How can she receive something that is not given? Implied in the question is the aspect of husband giving himself to the wife, too.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  14. Justin on May 29, 2014 at 1:19 PM

    Implied in the question is the aspect of husband giving himself to the wife, too.

    Then quit implying it and make it explicit.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 13

  15. Joni on May 29, 2014 at 1:53 PM

    I don’t actually have a problem with this explanation – the problem is that folk wisdom like this has a tendency to take on a life of its own. Look at all the convoluted explanations as to why the Priesthood Ban was doctrine when it turned out, whoops, it was never doctrine after all.

    And I’d have no problem with ‘giving myself’ to my husband, symbolically becoming his property, if he did the same for me. It’s when it’s applied unevenly that things like this (& the ‘hearkening’ from the endowment) become a huge, HUGE problem in my eyes.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 8

  16. Alo on May 29, 2014 at 2:13 PM

    IDIAT. as I understand it, women can be sealed to more than one husband as you said, but the difference is that those women are expected to choose only one to spend eternity with, whereas, men who are sealed to more than one women can expect to have all of them for eternity (so far as they all except him of course, but why wouldn’t they When their exaltation depends on it?)

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  17. Benjamin on May 29, 2014 at 2:56 PM

    While I agree that most forms of polygamy have resulted in women being treated as property (something I will try hard not to defend in what I’m about to say), I still don’t see how polygamy itself makes it impossible for a man to give himself to multiple wives.

    Part of that may be that I don’t view polygamy as creating distinct family units, but creating a larger family unit. In that paradigm, I would argue, the man is giving his all the as many wives as he is taking, and pledging to do everything he can to make all of those relationships work, not just the individual pairs.

    That isn’t to say that I don’t understand where you’re coming from. I just have my doubts that the language in the ordinance and in D&C 132 was carefully and deliberately chosen because of polygamy, and I don’t think the polygamy precludes the possibility of changing the language to be symmetric.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  18. IDIAT on May 29, 2014 at 3:04 PM

    Justin #14 – if you removed the “give yourself” part from the female question, you would still ask the sister if she was willing to receive her husband, the same verbiage we ask of the husband who “receives” his wife. I don’t care if the ‘give yourself’ language is removed from the female side or it’s added to the male side of the question. My point is that while it may be a cultural throw back, it’s not necessarily a doctrinal issue. Alo – #16 – I’ve already argued this point ad nauseum, but can you point out anywhere in the handbook or any other church publication that says women will have to choose? If not, maybe it’s folk doctrine and not what we actually believe. And why would the plural wives necessarily have to “accept” the sealing to a particular man? After all, aren’t there a whole lot of fish in the sea in the spirit world who’ve died without ever having been married or below age 8?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  19. Jeff Spector on May 29, 2014 at 3:12 PM

    I know everyone likes to put a modernistic spin to everything these days even though this is some pretty old stuff.

    In Genesis 2, it states:

    “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
    Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (23-24)

    The women gives herself to the man and he, in kind receives her back so they may become one flesh again, spiritually and emotionally. I do not think the word “cleave” has any meaning that implies ownership.

    I do realize that this does not fit well in today’s PC thinking.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  20. Kristine A on May 29, 2014 at 3:46 PM

    I’ve thought about the commandment to cleave and be one, and that’s why we would need to give ourselves to each other. If I give and he receives, I become a part of him — if we both give we create a new unit. So perhaps Genesis does fit in well in today’s PC thinking, but past interpretations have been off.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  21. rah on May 29, 2014 at 4:13 PM

    Jeff,

    I know man, we should totally just bring back the old obedience covenant because the changes were just PC dreck…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  22. New Iconoclast on May 29, 2014 at 8:07 PM

    IDIAT #11 says It may be a throwback to old cultural norms, but I don’t think there is anything nefarious about it. Nope, there isn’t bad intent. It’s just blithely, innocently, thoughtlessly sexist. It doesn’t even have the poor justification of being intentional (except insofar as the sealer makes something up to apologize for the lopsidedness of it). It’s just assumed, like air.

    Benjamin, in re. #17, part of your misunderstanding on this, in addition to some confusion about the indivisibility of the human male, may hinge on the fact that LDS polygyny was, in fact, meant to create separate households and not “one larger family unit” in any meaningful, earthly sense. With the exception of truly large polygynous families like Brigham Young’s, separate homes, or at the very least separate living quarters, were maintained. The lascivious imaginations of the repressed Victorian Protestant were not borne out in reality. Although those people are technically sealed together, by the time we’re done with temple work, the entire human family will be sealed together, so that’s not a differentiator.

    “Giving his all [to] as many wives as he is taking, and pledging to do everything he can to make all of those relationships work” (even if, as you say, he’s working at keeping harmony among sister wives), is not the same as giving yourself to your husband in the sense of D&C 132:62. Giving of yourself – something we are all expected to do, and not just in our marital relationships – does not equate to belonging to someone.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  23. Moss on May 29, 2014 at 8:10 PM

    I see it as part of the God>man>woman pattern set up in the temple.

    A priesthood holding man has given himself to God. He cannot give himself to his wife.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  24. Hedgehog on May 30, 2014 at 2:00 AM

    I was given the basic, it’s because of the tradition of women being ‘given away’ in the standard church wedding service, by the sealer when I married. I didn’t think any more on it at the time.

    Being in Britain, we’d had the church wedding earlier that day, and I had gone against that tradition anyway, in having my husband and I enter the chapel and walk down the aisle together, rather than walk in with my father and be handed over to my husband at the front of the chapel.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  25. New Iconoclast on May 30, 2014 at 7:16 AM

    Re #23 A priesthood holding man has given himself to God. He cannot give himself to his wife.

    I see your logic here, and it makes a certain sense, and you may have hit on something. If so, the poor woman should have a right to expect more. “I’m saving myself for God” is supposed to be the Baptist virgin’s line, not an LDS husband’s reason for relegating his wife to second-class citizenship.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  26. Mormon Heretic on May 30, 2014 at 7:48 AM

    The idea that the temple ceremony relates back to ancient Israel is problematic in its own right, but even if that were the case (which it is not), western societies haven’t practiced dowrys for daughters for many centuries. The temple endowment and initiatory ceremonies have changed many times (three times since I started going in the 1980s). It’s time to change this one and make the covenants more equitable to both men and women.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  27. Kullervo on May 30, 2014 at 7:49 AM

    The phraseology is based in the fact that “adultery” [as a legal term] was defined as a married woman having sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband — meaning it was not “adultery” if a married man had intercourse with an unmarried woman. Which means that it was all about a man’s “property rights”, which [at the time] included a woman [see, e.g., the father handing off the daughter to the husband].

    Under what legal system? At what time? In what culture?

    Giving away the bride is an antiquated tradition from the days when women were their father’s property until they got married and became their husband’s property. The bride was literally given away in exchange for a bride price or dowry.

    What days? When? Where? In what culture?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  28. IDIAT on May 30, 2014 at 8:57 AM

    NI – #22- everything in the temple is sexist, from the exclusivity of a bride’s dressing room to the lack of urinals in the women’s locker room.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  29. Mormon Heretic on May 30, 2014 at 9:56 AM

    IDIAT,

    If you want to complain about the exaggerations of OW, you shouldn’t exaggerate like you did in comment #28. You’re just as guilty of poor communication.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  30. IDIAT on May 30, 2014 at 10:34 AM

    Who’s complaining? I think we all ought to wear generic white shields (like those used in initiatory), the temple ceremonial clothing should be the same, the verbiage the same, men and women ought to sit together and never be separated, etc. Eliminate all evidence of gender. Or, are you one of those people who want to eliminate the gender nuanced language but would still be happy that women wear dresses and men wear pants? You can’t have it both ways. You either want the temple to be gender neutral or you don’t.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  31. Mormon Heretic on May 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM

    IDIAT, I didn’t say I wanted it gender neutral, I wanted it equitable. Women don’t need urinals, and I said nothing about women in pants. For you to pretend I said something I didn’t shows you’re not interested in true conversation, but are more interested in spreading exaggerations and false claims. Stop the hyperbole and start real conversation, not false assumptions. You can do better and are no better than those you claim to despise.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  32. IDIAT on May 30, 2014 at 3:25 PM

    First, I never said anything about OW in this thread, so your comment in 29 is way out of line. My #30 was tongue in cheek. Second, I never said you said you wanted the temple experience to be gender neutral. I asked if you were the kind of feminist who wants to eliminate the offending language but still be okay with the other ways that discrimination is practiced in the temple. None of this has anything to do with the post. The bloggernacle is not a place for real conversation. If you want to have a conversation, come sit next to me in a pew. Serve in a calling with me. Come have dinner at my house. Then we can discuss anything you want. All this other stuff is just bytes floating around in space.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  33. Mormon Heretic on May 30, 2014 at 8:34 PM

    IDIAT, the reason we can’t have serious conversations on the bloggernacle is because some people make hyperbolic statements. I don’t know where you live, or I would come to your ward if I could. Hedgehog lives in England, Hawk lives in Arizona, I live in Utah. We have serious conversations, despite the distance, so coming to your ward shouldn’t be a prerequisite. (I’ve only met Hawk in person once, and haven’t met most of the bloggers here.) That’s why we have the bloggernacle in the first place. There’s no reason why we can’t have serious conversations here on the internet, so I encourage you not to detract from the conversations here. (I have a calling, and I am a 90%+ home teacher by the way. Despite all that, I can’t talk about this stuff at church without somebody grumbling.) So please add to the conversation without the hyperbole. These conversations can be serious if desired.

    (And remember, sometimes humor is hard to understand on the internet without a smilie to let us know you are joking.)

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  34. Jack Hughes on May 31, 2014 at 1:17 AM

    I noticed in the various times I have participated in proxy sealings (in different temples, BTW), whenever the sealer decides to take a break, he usually uses the opportunity to go on some kind of quasi-doctrinal tangent about this or that, with varying degrees of plausibility or validity. Is that part of the program? Are sealers encouraged/instructed to do this? Does having the sealing power entitle them to levels of knowledge that regular members are not privy to?

    Also, I don’t personally know any temple sealers, and I know nothing about the selection/screening process for them. Are they plucked out of relative LDS obscurity (as most ward callings presumably are) or are they carefully selected for certain religious credentials (CES instructors, LDS scholars, former stake presidents, longtime veil workers, etc.)?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  35. IDIAT on May 31, 2014 at 6:04 AM

    MH 33 – conversations on the bloggernacle take on all sorts of forms. I’ve surely noted plenty of sarcasm, cynicism and hyperbole in your posts and comments. Why you accused me of having some anti-OW agenda back up in #29 still hasn’t been explained. When you assume facts not in evidence and also go on a personal attack, you’re likely to get the kind of response that followed.
    JH – at least in my temple, the sealers are mostly retired guys who have served in bishoprics, stake presidencies, etc. Though experienced in church matters, I wouldn’t consider them scholars. The sealer the other night made the offhand comment that they are discouraged from trying go give interpretations of symbolic things of the temple, but it is okay to relate personal stories and experiences. It’s one thing to describe the wonderful feeling felt when sealing a long lost family. It’s quite another to launch off into speculative areas for which we have no clear revelation. Sealers are just like the rest of us. They have their own opinions. And, I would add, so do temple presidents. I’ve known the last three temple presidents fairly well. They have been wonderful leaders. But they would admit that when asked some of the tougher questions all they could do was speculate. Sometimes they might offer encouragement in a particular situation so as to give comfort to the patron. Yet they were always careful not to couch things in terms of ‘thus sayeth The Lord.’ That is why, when I read a comment where someone quotes a temple president as absolute authority, I chuckle a little bit. They may know more about the practical things of the temple but there is no secret handbook that reveals doctrines on eternal marriage, plural sealings, and so forth.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  36. Sherry on June 1, 2014 at 7:06 PM

    Pardon my “french” but the explanation is bullshit. It is what it is – the woman “gives” herself to the man. My LDS X used that exact phrase to justify raping me over decades, because I “gave” myself to him. Add to that phrase in the temple, all the other demeaning and sexist teachings/doctrines/beliefs in the church and it’s small wonder why there are men like my X. I’ve asked numerous questions in temples over the years and each time the answer is not the same; from Temple Pres., Matron, temple workers. IMO they give their own explanation, colored by their own experiences. If Mother in Heaven was evident, as in powerful, an example, a leader, etc in the temple perhaps there would be less sexism. Again – I don’t often use profanity but this phrase cause me untold and lasting misery, which eventually led to my divorce, which was a good thing, and to my further distance from the church. I simply cannot attend a church that treats its women in this way.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  37. Mormon Heretic on June 1, 2014 at 9:47 PM

    IDIAT, my “attack” in 29 was a response to your ridiculous comment about urinals in female restrooms in 28. I don’t take kindly to stupid comments like that, and assumed such a comment was a veiled reference to OW. Certainly it had nothing to do with the sealing ordinance, so I wonder why you posed such a stupid comment. I didn’t think you intended humor by it, and if you did mean humor, then you should make it more clear. Comments are easily misunderstood as yours apparently was by me.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  38. IDIAT on June 2, 2014 at 9:36 AM

    MH – my comment in #29 was in direct response to New Iconclast’s comment ” It’s just blithely, innocently, thoughtlessly sexist.” And, as I indicated, the temple experience is sexist. Men and women sit apart except to participate in the prayer circle. We don’t have a couples bathroom where couples get dressed. Initiatory is men on men, women on women. There is a bride’s room but no groom’s room. And so on and so forth. If you think my point was stupid and snarky that’s your business. If you wanted to address my comments earlier about my interpretation of the language in the sealing ordinance, perhaps that would have been better. Well, if the church is so intent on wives “giving” themselves to their husbands so their husbands can freely abuse them, then explain why that language in not included in the civil marriage questions that priesthood leaders must use when performing marriages outside of the temple. A simple review of the questions shows that the exact same question is asked of the groom as is asked of the bride. I would think, if the church was hell bent on “keeping women in their place,” and giving husbands carte blanche permission to abuse their wives, it would have included the “give yourself” language in non-temple marriage ceremony questions, too. It didn’t. This is much ado over nothing. OR, it is a doctrinal issue that somehow relates only to sealings, but obviously not to time only marriages. Your guess is as good as mine. I do wonder, though, that when a couple is married civilly outside of the temple, then sealed later in the temple, what effect the “give yourself” language really has since the couple is already married.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  39. New Iconoclast on June 2, 2014 at 10:37 AM

    In re. #38, your comment re my comment holds no water since we also have segregated bathrooms in chapels, where time-only marriages are held. Those women’s rooms also have no urinals (I’ve cleaned them when it was my family’s turn to help on Saturday mornings).

    So, now that we’ve established that restroom fixtures have nothing to do with OW or with sealing ordinances, let’s actually consider why the woman gives herself in the sealing ordinance but not in the civil marriage (a useful bit of information that IDIAT throws out there, a drop of ambrosia in a sea of obfuscation).

    Could it be that the “give” is actually part of the eternal covenant, and that the reporting relationship noticed by so many observers is codified therein? And that, since a civil marriage doesn’t involve an eternal covenant, the hierarchy need not be established, thus the one-sided “give” is omitted?

    So I may have been wrong in #22 – it may have been intentional. Still not nefarious (as in, “ill-intended”) but still intentionally unequal.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  40. IDIAT on June 2, 2014 at 12:09 PM

    NI #39 – Ahh – but there is a mother’s lounge in most chapels, but no “father’s lounge.” (okay – that’s just for fun and totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Glad to be leaving this sexist stuff behind.) I’m glad you touched on the fact that the sealing language relates to covenants that are for this life as well as the next, as opposed to the “time only” language used in LDS civil ceremonies. I’ve thought about the differences between the obligations between husbands and wives who are married in the temple versus those who are married civilly, either by their bishop or some other officiant. The sealing ceremony is fairly short on obligations owed between spouses. However, the civil ceremony in the handbook actually spells out the need for spouses to “cleave unto the other spouse, observe all laws, covenants and obligations, and love, honor and cherish the other spouse until death…” The civil ceremony sounds a little more like what we would hear at other wedding ceremonies. Anyway, it may be intentional. It may not be intentional. If the sealing language of giving oneself is antiquiated, you would think the church, being conservative, would include the same kind of language in the time only ceremony. On the other hand, if it was doctrinal and of some significance to plural marriage, then it leaves me wondering why we used the same language when we sealed my wife’s grandmother to the 4 husbands she had in mortality. After all how can she “give herself” to the four husbands? Finally, if it’s just because leaders have failed to keep up with the times, why someone hasn’t long thought about changing the language by now. Here’s a question: Suppose we have a couple married civilly 100 years ago. They live and die, have a grandchild who joins the church, who then seals the couple together. In the vicarious sealing ceremony done on their behalf, it obviously has the “give and receive” language on the female side. However, vicarious sealings are only effective if accepted by the parties. During mortality, the wife didn’t “give herself” to her husband. Is she supposed to now “give herself” to her husband in the Spirit World? Dwelling on the language is fun. It’s speculative. But, in the end, I still don’t think it has any real effect.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  41. IDIAT on June 2, 2014 at 12:22 PM

    One other point: Could it be that “receiving” one’s spouse is akin to “receiving” the Holy Ghost? See Elder Bednar’s October 2010 conference talk:

    The simplicity of this ordinance may cause us to overlook its significance. These four words—“Receive the Holy Ghost”—are not a passive pronouncement; rather, they constitute a priesthood injunction—an authoritative admonition to act and not simply to be acted upon…

    Which brings me back to the point that in the sealing language, the wife “receives” her husband, and of course the husband “receives” his wife. Is the “giving” language of the sealing ordinance so far removed and unrelated to the “receive” language that we must understand it to be separate and distinct notions?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  42. Guy T on June 2, 2014 at 3:45 PM

    Jack in 34, “I don’t personally know any temple sealers, and I know nothing about the selection/screening process for them. Are they plucked out of relative LDS obscurity (as most ward callings presumably are) or are they carefully selected for certain religious credentials (CES instructors, LDS scholars, former stake presidents, longtime veil workers, etc.)?”

    I went to the temple on Saturday and talked to one of the sealers. I asked him about the selection process. He said that he had served a full-time mission for 10-12 years, and then surprisingly received an invitation by Pres Hinckley to become a sealer at the Provo Temple. The funny thing was, the temple pres told him they had no openings. Then a week or so later, Pres Hinckley called him to be 2nd counselor in the Mt Timp Temple. He received the sealing power as part of that calling and has been a sealer ever since his release from the temple presidency. He had previously served as a bishop, stake pres, and regional representative.

    He said he knew another sealer that had never been any of those callings “or nothing. Just a bricklayer.” This man went on a mission to Sweden, spoke Swedish, and was called as a sealer there. After his mission, he returned home and has been a sealer.

    The man I spoke to said if you want to become a sealer, probably the best bet is to serve a temple mission somewhere. He also said that when he was a counselor, he recommended a few men to become sealers and nothing ever happened. So I guess it is a bit of a crap shoot.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  43. MH on June 2, 2014 at 3:53 PM

    IDIAT, there is a very interesting post at FMH about the sexism in the endowment ceremony. I’d be curious to hear your take as to whether this is much ado about nothing, or is there something there? http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/04/the-mormon-priestess-the-short-version/

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  44. IDIAT on June 2, 2014 at 7:11 PM

    Yeah, I read it already. I don’t agree with all her conclusions and interpretations.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  45. Mormon Heretic on June 2, 2014 at 11:02 PM

    So it is much ado about nothing, or is something there?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

%d bloggers like this: