Talk:Sealing (Mormonism)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Eternal Marriage[edit]

Perhaps we should combine this page and Eternal Marriage together? I think they are duplicative. Visorstuff 07:33, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Should Eternal Marriage redirect here, or should it contain a short explanation?COGDEN 17:52, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Let's put the sealing info in the eternal marriage page (removes the mormonism redirect). Visorstuff 21:51, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think we should put it all in this article and redirect Eternal Marriage here. The term "sealing" just seems a bit more general---especially to people who don't already know what eternal marriage means; the people most likely to be reading the article. Bccomm 20:13, Aug 10, 2004

Nice job keeping this NPOV. That's tough to do with a religious concept. Joyous 00:44, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

The only NPOV issue I see is dealing with men being sealed to many women, women only being sealed to one man.. As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we are taught that women are not sealed to the men, the women are sealed to the Preisthood, hence a second sealing for a women is not nessacary as she has already been sealed to the Preisthood. Brian Hartvigsen 21:52, Nov 11, 2005 [GMT -7 DST]

The concept of "women are sealed to the Priesthood" is only found in some fundamentalists versions (actually I am only aware of this being true for FLDS church of Hildale, Utah) of Mormonism and not the The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. As a practicing member and as a temple worker in the Salt Lake Temple, I had never heard this taught before and I was completely unware of this concept until reading the above comment. With some research I have discovered that for the FLDS, this concept, more formally called the "law of placement" allows fundamentalist leaders to reassign a man's wives and children to other more worthy men in the community because they are sealed to the priesthood and not the priesthood-holder. In the case of an excommunication, a polygamous man and his family may be told that he no longer holds the priesthood and that he, therefore, cannot exalt them in heaven. His family is often given the choice to remarry or stay with the husband and father, which may entail excommunication of all family members. JafarD 12:00, May 27, 2010

Sealing members of other religions[edit]

I'm surprised that there is no discussion here regarding the controversy of sealing and even baptizing non-Mormon ancestors into the church. I know that this was particularly controversial when it came to the "baptism" of Jewish victims of the Holocaust and that an agreement was reached in 1995 to stop that specific aspect of sealing [1]. Mike Dillon 03:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is discussed in the Baptism for the dead article. Val42 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I may be confused about the relationship between "sealing" and "baptism". Mike Dillon 06:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Confused "Misconception"[edit]

I find the following statement in the article very confusing: "A common misconception is that a man sealed to one or more women, but civilly divorced or a widower, may be sealed to another woman assuming the couple is worthy and the union is permitted by Church authorities and that although a woman can only be sealed to one man, she can be married civilly to another man and have that marriage recognized by the Church."

Please state what the policy is. How is a currently-living man even sealed to one or more women in the first place, and which part of the long, complicated sentence that follows is false and how is it false? It sounds self-contradictory as though coming from someone trying to deny a policy without knowing what the policy really is.198.60.22.24 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement quoted is true, it is not a misconception at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.210.253 (talkcontribs) 00:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
True or not, there is no supporting reference, so it should be removed. — Val42 03:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I checked this information (discussed above), and the only references for it are in the Church Handbook of Instructions. This text from that article is particularly relevant: "Neither volume of the Church Handbook of Instructions is available for sale to the general public or the general church membership, nor is an official version available on the internet. The church asserts copyright over the contents of the Church Handbook and prohibits its duplication." Therefore, this text is inherently unreferenceable, so I removed it and other text that has (or would have) this same reference. — Val42 03:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sealing Ceremony[edit]

It would be interesting if some of the aspects of the sealing ceremony were discussed. Some examples are: A bride must not show her arms and must wear a high-neckline, guests are not allowed to be present at the sealing ceremony, etc. 96.28.105.175 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll need references from reliable sources to put any of this information into the article. — Val42 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Male-to-Male Sealings[edit]

I'm surprised this isn't discussed in the article, as there were many sealings done between males through the time of the fourth president, Wilford Woodruff. (Brigham Young called the male sealings "a great and glorious doctrine" and was sealed to Joseph Smith.) Does the page have a history of edit warring about these male-to-male sealings? Because I don't really want to get into adding it to the article if it's proven to be a contentious aspect of the sealings, and if it's just going to go back and forth forever. Thanks, to anyone who's more familiar with the article's history. Codenamemary (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be discussed in the Law of adoption article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm...okay I will read that. But since the Law of Adoption was a sealing, shouldn't a link be provided under the SEE ALSO section? Codenamemary (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No idea why it wasn't already there; it's been added. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

The article Sealing power should be merged into Sealing (Mormonism). Having someone with the correct authority to perform a valid sealing is an element of the ordinance, and doesn't need to be described separately. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sealer[edit]

Neither this article nor the article on the sealing power describes the calling of a temple sealer, nor the development of the sealing power being only exercised by Apostles/GAs into the modern role of temple sealer. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Secret Nature of Sealings[edit]

I think it's a little troubling that there is no mention of any criticism of the sealings as being closed ceremonies that family members cannot attend if they are not Mormons. This is a documented criticism of the church that frequently gets discussed in news sources. Right now, the article reads very pro-LDS because it does not mention the secrecy or closed nature of temple ceremonies. At the very least, the details of exactly what is happening inside the temples during a sealing need to be in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.253.18.168 (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What happens in temples is not secret. It's sacred. And the temples are not "closed". There's a HUGE difference. Anyone who qualifies as worthy to enter the temples can find out what goes on in them. The articles are not biased in favor of the Church. Groups of editors work together to ensure that a neutral point of view is achieved. If you have any specific concerns, please state them. If not, then it's pointless to suggest the degree of criticism you are recommending, as this would violate the above WP policies. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
That's not correct at all. Temples are closed to people who don't want to convert to the LDS church, including any family members of the people getting married inside the temple. There is well-documented criticism about the practice of tearing families apart because of the closed nature of temples. What you're saying is pure apologetics for the church and is incredibly one-sided with the LDS church. To make this article balanced, it needs to mention the controversy about non-Mormon family members not being able to attend sealing ceremonies. Also, this article does not currently mention the tokens (secret handshakes) used in the sealing ceremony or any other information the church likes to keep secret. I think it's Wikipedia's job to make sure this information is public. I've made an addition with proper citations noting the existence of well-documented criticism. Jrobe011 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Who is Hugh Pyle and what makes him a reliable source? And it is not "Wikipedia's job to make sure this information is public." You may also want to read WP:CRITICISM about avoiding criticism sections. 72Dino (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
He is an author who wrote a book, which is cited, that details some valid criticism of some LDS practices. I think providing this kind of criticism is necessary to ensure the neutrality of the article. As it stood without criticism, it was very pro-LDS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrobe011 (talkcontribs) 13:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)