Extra-Temple Sealings
Sealings for Mormons are the ultimate sacraments. Man and woman, parent and child cast together by the fire of Elijah’s spirit. Modern Mormons expect the systematic temple liturgy to alloy them in the Abrahamic order. Perhaps surprisingly, this standard was not apparent during the lifetime of the Prophet; moreover, while Temples remained sparse through to the 20th century, the liturgy remained dynamic.
Joseph gave perhaps the first of the temple ordinances, as we now know them, in 1841, sealing Heber and Vilate Kimball for time and all eternity (1). The first endowments were not given until 1842 and then only to a select number. No further endowments were offered during Bennett’s crusade against the church and while Hyrum and Emma had yet to be fully converted to all of Joseph’s teachings. It was not until late in 1843 that more individuals were initiated into the sacred rites. Sealings, however, were not infrequent during this time. Once the Nauvoo temple was complete all ordinances performed up to that point were re-effectuated in the House of the Lord.<.p>
While washings, anointings and endowments were reserved for either the Endowment House or temples. Members were able to be sealed and to participate in prayer circles regardless of their locale and access to sacral accommodations. While extra-temple sealings seemed to have declined precipitously in the early 20th century, extra-temple prayer circles continued until 1978 (2).
It is therefore not a surprise that there was confusion in cases where people were sealed yet had not attended the Temple. On August 24, 1877 John Nuttle recorded in his journal several questions asked of President Young pertaining to the administration of Temple rites. Among these was a question on such individuals and the President’s response:
Are children who have been born to parents who have been sealed. but not had endowments, born in the covenant, or will they have to be sealed to their parents?
They will have to be sealed to their parents.
Later after the turn of the 20th Century, the First Presidency responded to a similar inquiry by President Andrew Kimball (Spencer’s father) in Arizona:
The temple rule governing the case referred to by you is in substance this: Where children are born to parents who have been sealed by an Apostle outside of the temple before receiving their endowments, all such children should be sealed to their parents over the altar whenever the opportunity presents itself, and the fit and proper time to have this work done would be when the parents receive their endowments; but should the opportunity never be given to such parents and children to be thus sealed, the children will be in the covenant of the holy priesthood just as though they had been born to their parents after their parents had been sealed and received their endowments.
The child born to the parents referred to before they were sealed by the Apostle should of course be sealed to its parents.
It is perhaps one of the many blessings from our current prodigious Temple program that we are able to pursue God’s forge in the regular and ordered prescription that is now common.
_____________________
- Stanley B. Kimball (1981) Heber C. Kimball: Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer, p. 93 and references therein.
- E.g., the Bellevue Washington Stake Center had an alter for the Stake High Council Prayer Circle until the 1978 First Presidency circular relegated all such activities to the Temple. More information on this topic can be found in D. Michael Quinn (1978) Latter-Day Saint Prayer Circles. BYU Studies, vol. 19 No. 1 pg. 79
- John Nuttle Diary, August 24, 1877, BYU Special Collections
- Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 4 pg. 45
Comment by Eric — 1/19/2006 @ 8:44 am
Totally rad, man. Thanks for posting this. The original sources are great.
My grandfather talks about prayer circle meetings to this day (he’s 88). The glory days of pre-Correlation!
Comment by David J — 1/19/2006 @ 11:41 am
Comment by Jonathan R. — 1/20/2006 @ 3:44 pm
Comment by J. Stapley — 1/20/2006 @ 5:20 pm
“What kind of offering will the sons of Levi make to fulfil the words of Malachi and John [ftnt Malachi 3:1-4, D&C 13, 124:39, 128:24]? Logically such a sacrifice as they were authorized to make in the days of their former ministry when they were first called…This will have to be the case because all things are to be restored…We are living in the the dispensation of the fulness of times into which all things are to be gathered, and all things are to be restored since the beginning…Now in the nature of all things, the law of sacrifice will have to be restored, or all things which were decreed by the Lord would not be restored. It will be necessary, therefore, for the sons of Levi, who offered the blood dacrifices anciently in Israel, to offer such a sacrifice again to round out and complete this ordinance in this dispensation…blood sacrifices will be performed long enough to complete the fulness of the restoration in this dispensation. Afterwards sacrifice will be of some other character” (Doctrines of Salvation 3:93-94).
In my bringing this up, it could actually lead to a number of other articles, such as, “Was the restoration of all things” completed during the lifetime of Joseph Smith?” or, “What will the offering of the sons of Levi entail?” So in two comments, I have unintentionally misled the direction of your article
More to the original point, I think the this church learns and progresses as a whole. For instance, I served my mission under the six discussions. Yet, mere months after my return, the “Preach My Gospel” program was introduced, and the work increased dramatically. I attribute this to the continuing revelation of the Church, and I believe the better order within performing temple ordinances is likewise such a revelatory growth. But I believe we are in more agreement when I put it that way.
Comment by Jonathan R. — 1/20/2006 @ 9:30 pm
But I don think we are in pretty much agreement.
Comment by J. Stapley — 1/26/2006 @ 7:56 pm
I was doing some work on the back end, deleted these comments and had to add them back in one shot. Sorry about the numbering.
Comment by J. Stapley — 1/26/2006 @ 7:58 pm
As Eric mentioned, there does seem to be an idea of “do the best that you can with what you have” built into the gospel. I think that has to do with the shaping of one’s heart such that it is heading in the ‘right direction’ in passing from this life into the next.
I can’t remember where I read it (Miracle of Forgiveness?), but there is the idea that whatever direction we are heading in as we pass from this life to the next will dominate our path in the next life. If saints were/are dilligently seeking, hoping, and preparing for ordinances administratively impossible in this lifetime it is counted for righteousness unto them, and the Lord’s purposes are still accomplished in the shaping of their heart.
This same pattern is reminiscent of how, when we have done all that we can, we can pray to the Lord to make up the difference or any lack in an area where we fall short. That initial effort, that doing all that we can, is vital to the effectiveness of our prayers for help.
Doing the best that we can makes somewhat of an offering of our efforts, and offerings are as much, if not much moreso, for the one making the offering (sacrifice) as for the Lord in and of Himself.
Comment by Naiah Earhart — 1/27/2006 @ 4:06 pm