This is number two in a series. I add here the preface to each of these posts on the CHI.
Since the CHI deals with LDS church doctrine and in places draws from the scriptures there are many good things said in this handbook. In fact so far the vast majority is either administrative policies which are neutral in their spiritual application and the rest are just good true principles. But, there are some things that raise questions. And that is all I will be bringing out for discussion.
Section 3 deals with temples and marriage.
3.4.3 This is about making temple and ceremonial clothing.
It says members may make their own temple aprons only if they use the approved apron embroidery and sewing kit. The kit is available from church distribution services. Other temple ceremonial may not be made nor may temple garments be made.
I was shocked. I still am. Can anyone doubt that the members in years past were all allowed to make their own garments and ceremonial clothing? D&C 42:40 And again, thou shalt not be proud in thy heart; let all thy garments be plain, and their beauty the beauty of the work of thine own hands;
You can say that doesn’t refer to temple garments because the endowment hadn’t been given yet. Our God is named Jesus Christ. It was He that spoke those words. It was He that knew in a short time the endowment with the principles and practices would be given to us. It is hard to take the revelation as applying to all clothing we as members would wear in our lives. But can easily be understood to apply to the garments which are a symbol of the covenant He has made with us.
You know what I want? I want to live the full gospel of Jesus Christ. It came to all at the cost of the blood and suffering of the Son of God. It came to me and you in this dispensation at the cost of the blood of Joseph and Hyrum Smith among others.
What did I do to become unworthy of having this gospel? I don’t recall a trial. Who witnesses against me and you to condemn us and take from us the right to live the gospel as restored to the prophet Joseph Smith?
I am sure it was allowed as short ago as 1970 for members to make their own priesthood garments. What is this all about? Surely it has nothing to do with protecting the sacredness of the garment since a purchased garment can just as easily be misused. In fact if we had to make them the likelihood of them being more protected would be much higher.
I won’t accuse anyone of simply wanting to insure that beehive clothing mills makes a better profit.
All I know is there was a right which was given me by God and now someone has decided I don’t have that right any more. “Oh but it is such a trivial thing.” I can hear someone say. Have we not all seen that it is bit by bit that the people in the US are being deprived of one right and then another? And who is the author of this erosion of rights and liberties? Who was the founder of our liberty?
Whose side are you on?
Section 3.5 The sub heading is marriage.
Paragraph 2 says a couple who are planning to be married must obtain a legal marriage license that is valid in the place where the marriage is to be performed.
The common definition of license is: Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. But the license from the state is a legal question and so a more applicable definition is in Black Law dictionary which says: The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.”
By obtaining a state (any government) issued marriage license you give jurisdiction over the marriage to that state. They have the legal power to regulate your marriage just as they do any business to which they grant a license. I suggest you check out one or all of the links below to learn more. You should know the history of this practice.
A great sermon by Pastor Matt Trewhella, Should Christians get a marriage license by David J. Stewart and Marriage License Truth very informative.
Can you find any place in scripture in which the Lord says we need to get permission of a government to be married? It is a fact that in the US there are common law marriages which means a man and a woman who live as a married couple are considered married without any license at all.
The Lord in D&C 132 speaks of marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. And so it is. And if they want that marriage to be valid in and after the resurrection it must be sealed by His law. And never did He say anything about state approval. Why does the church?
If the previous question about the personal making of temple and priesthood garments was a little thing this is surely a big, profound and fundamental destruction of the God given rights of the members of the church. In order to receive a temple sealing you must be sold into bondage to the state.
The argument will surely be made that marriage is and should be a legally enforceable contract and therefore we need to submit to the laws of the state to solemnize a marriage. The first part is true. Marriage is a legal contract. The violation of marriage laws should be dealt with the same as any other contract violation. But the therefore clause is a non sequitur, because any couple living together even without a marriage license can bring their de facto spouse to a court and sue for violation of the contract stated or implied. Millions of dollars have changed hands over just such arrangements.
This is a big one. This is a bad one. Where was the revelation stating it should be so? Did we as members of the church have an informed vote on it? Were we made aware of what we were and are being forced to do in order to have the sealing power made available to us and our posterity? Do you think God is pleased with this added requirement? Do you think the devil is pleased? Are you pleased with it?
Well there are at least 4 more questions before we get through section 3. They will be the subject of other posts.
P.S. I had some fear in starting these posts. I thought of possible excommunication, anger of others even family members and rejection by many etc. But then I thought of what LDSA had said about William Tyndale, the man who was killed for breaking the law. He distributed and smuggled bibles which were written in English. I decided to nail my colors to the mast and do what I feel is right without fear of the consequences. What a difference that made in my life. It has given me courage to do things I have never done before. This and surely the prayers of those who love me have given me courage take the lead in my family life. I am at peace and can feel a new power I have never had before. It feels like a great amplification of the power of the priesthood in my life. I highly recommend it.
22 Comments
LDS Anarchy 
In fact so far the vast majority is either administrative policies which are neutral in their spiritual application
Is not this the “more or less than this cometh of evil” rule? Either it is a part of the gospel, or it is not — is there “neutral”?
Well to be sure the vast majority of the CHI does not deal with the gospel of Jesus Christ but rather the administrative policies and regulations/guidelines of the programs of the LDS church. So yes if you are conscious that programs are not part of the gospel then the church should keep the two separate and say okay here is the gospel and then just have excerpts from the scriptures keeping it accurate.
Then if they want to be up front the church could print a manual with a disclaimer or explanation up front saying, “Hey for those of you who want more than just the gospel of Christ here is a manual for a whole bunch of programs that go beyond what Jesus said. That way you can do these programs and say all is well in Zion even without living the principles Christ taught.”
But I don’t expect that to happen. Sincerely you can see that people honestly believe what is printed in the manuals constitutes the gospel. And that is the problem with it. So you are 100% correct that since it is not the gospel yet the church wants us to think and act as if it is the gospel all of it is spiritually negative. I probably should change the disclaimer to be like the Lord’s statement on the apocrypha. There are some good points and there are some bad points. But really what I am doing is finding the bad points in an effort to demonstrate the whole thing is not good.
I will amend the preface in future posts.
Why? Because one once of evil in a ton of truth destroys the whole mass.
I have a question, concerning D&C 132:7 I have been thinking lately that the statement in parenthesis about there being only one on earth at a time to hold the sealing powers could be misinformation inserted after the fact and not part of the original revelation or writing. What do you all think? I also find it curious that with all the documented revelations included in the Joseph Smith Papers volumes that D&C 132 is not included.
It is possible I will be meeting with a person in the near future that has a knowledge of the historical documents (Galaxy Quest reference not intended) and I will ask him. I am not conversant in the historical paper etc to answer that. There has been some discussion on who can do a sealing but I don’t know where I saw or heard about it. I hope someone can shed some light on it as I too want to know.
See I could have said, “I dunno.” But I wanted to appeal for help so I made a longer comment.
Yes, there are a couple things in 132 that seem out of place. But i also think there is a lot of truth too.
“It’s a rock, it doesn’t have any vulnerable spots.”
“If you could fashion some sort of rudimentary lathe.”
I believe the church of the Firstborn was first introduced to the mormons on Feb. 16,1832 (D&C 76). I also believe the nucleus of the church the Firstborn was officially begun May 4, 1842 in Nauvoo, by Joseph Smith. It was called by its members the Holy Order, Quorum of the annointed, ect.
Brigham Young mentioned in Utah, as is recorded in the Journal of Discourses, that the ordinances of the House of the Lord are expressly for the church of the Firstborn. Brigham was one of the first nine intitiates of the Holy Order.
Hope this helps
OH YEAH OH Yeah, Galaxy Quest! Zo ma rah you are a man after my heart. I love video quotes.
I have sworn off TV. Haven’t watched it of my own accord for years. I love movie but in reality I am slacken off there but still have a good data bank of the quotes.
Those who receive the final anointing (2nd anointing) have independent right to perform sealings, those who have been given a special dispensation of delegated authority by one who has received their 2nd anointing, perform sealings. All this as per the statement of the Lord; D&C 76:94-95.
jew1967 regarding your comment I just realized we already have the answer to that one. Now I don’t cast doubt on Section 132. I have testimony of it because I feel the spirit of truth as I read it. It is the only explanation of an undeniable fact of the scriptures that some of the most righteous men of God even the heads of dispensations had more than one wife. So I thoroughly believe that D&C 132 is of God. Now it is also obvious to us in our day that there were people in the leading councils who wanted to limit and then do away with polygamy, as is evidenced by the treatment of John Taylor Junior and the official declaration of “advice” penned by Wiflord Woodruff.
So I hold out the possibility or even probability that it could have been altered.
I read the 9 part series on the uncorrelated history of church correlation by Daymon Smith you can find it here and look in part three about the courts of love.
And in the so called courts of love which were held in the very early 1900’s there were apostles calling in temple sealers demanding to know who had authorized the polygamist sealings which had continued to happen even after the Official Advice #1 (I am making fun of the Official Declaration 1 because in it we have prophet of God saying he “advises” we stop polygamy rather than demands or what we really need to hear that the Lord commands it to cease).
But look what we have. Here are apostles holding special fact finding disciplinary councils and asking who authorized the plural marriages.
Well hello! If the apostles have to ask who authorized the polygamist marriages then it is pretty obvious that there was more than one person on the earth able to authorize them.
Elementary Dr. Watson, Case closed.
So Jon Butler are you saying someone who has had the second endowment (the ordinance) can confer upon another priesthood holder the authority to perform sealings?
Now wouldn’t that be a very useful addition to a tribal organization?
Thanks dyc4557 for the tip. I’m with you on the veracity of the original 132 revelation. That helps explain why the brethren emphasize so much on the president holding all the keys and only he is authorized to exercise them given as a litmus test in the Temple recommend interview to keep the sheeple in line and in control. Curious ay?
Now researching this and the comment by Jon Butler has got me to thinking.
We can see that all marriages entered into by a man and a woman who remain or end up faithful to the covenant they made with each other will be ratified by God at least by vicarious works if not in this life.
Even a temple sealing before death needs to be ratified by the Holy Ghost the same as all ordinances. This could take place before death or any other time before the resurrection. The resurrection to me is the cutoff point since you are resurrected with that portion of glory according to what you have lived up to. And that only celestial bodies which can procreate will have the continuation of the seeds. (D&C 88 and 132)
I am talking about just the straight line plan of the Lord to get from here to the Celestial Kingdom not about any possibility of progression between kingdoms or any recycling any of which may be a possibility.
So my question: Is the second anointing a required ordinance? Will it be done vicariously for those who did not receive it in this life. My thought is that it is not.
I don’t think people who have had their calling and election made sure by the Lord’s direct voice out of the heavens (Alma or Nephi in the book of Helaman or Parley P Pratt) will then require a separate man performed ordinance. And so all who do not have it done in this life will receive the promise made sure by the Lord at sometime in the spirit world.
Surely that is what would happen to make us say , “Okay I have spent long enough in the world of spirits laboring for my brothers and sisters. The mission of my life is complete. I am ready to have my body resurrected and get on with the enjoyment of the celestial kingdom. Time to start my own family.”
I ask this because I wonder if the power spoken of in verse 7 of 132 which only one person on earth holds at any one time is the power to administer the second anointing in this life. That would make sense. Those who receive this are nominated and then their name is considered by the 1st presidency and the council of the 12. This would fulfill the “by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed” clause. Then the ordinance I believe is performed only by the president of the high priesthood. Now if the last statement is not true then this interpretation would not hold. But you see there never would be a question by any apostles who authorized someone receiving the second anointing.
If any one has info on this please share.
132:26 seems, to me, to be an indicator of the Second Anointing. It talks about that if a person commits any sin, so long as it is not shedding innocent blood, they will come forth in the first ressurection and receive their exaltation. That makes no sense in any other context than the Second Anointing.
Joseph Smith envisioned all three kingdoms of glory would be lived on earth; not all people simultaneously.
We know that the telestial is the world in which we now live, according to the temple drama. We have also been informed that beings are amongst us who are of the terrestrial order. We have also been told that the earth is to be celestialized. Joseph Smith, with the institution of the church of the Firstborn set this in motion. The church of the Firstborn is not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as was infered in an earlier comment, ” the ordinances of the house of the Lord are expressly for the church of the Firstborn”.
All the priesthood one receives in the LDS Church is provisional. It is not until one receives the 2nd annointiing and its confirmation( the reception of the other comforter, 2nd comforter), that priesthood is perminant or everlasting.
In Joseph’s discourse dated 27 June, 1839 he gives information on Election, Holy Spirit of Promise, and the other Comforter
One might bring forth the point that baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost is an ordinance pertaining to the celestial kingdom, and enterance into the church and kingdom of God (LDS church). I believe that if the promises made in the baptismal covenant were fully kept, that from that seed in time the fullness of God could be known and realized. At least I believe Joseph felt that way. Apparently these covenants were not being fully kept because in Sept 1832 Joseph received a revelation, D&C 84, in which the Lord says the whole church is under condemnation, verses 51-58. Does anyone know if the condemnation has been lifted?
The Lord had Joseph persist and contiinue to work with the people as history shows.
I believe the Holy Order was initiated in 1842 to cull out Joseph’s most trusted from among the members of the LDS church to reveal to that group the gems of the kingdom and to live the gospel in its fullness.
I do not believe the parenthetical phrase in vs 7 section 132 was in the original. Historian Lyndon W. Cook points out in his book “The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith” Published in 1981. that the bracketed insertion, [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage], in Section 131 is not in the original. To me the one in verse 7 sec 132 just does not make sense in light of my study.
I do think the many even the majority of the church is under the condemnation spoken of.
However I do not believe that God prevents an individual from repenting and receiving His blessings even if others do not.
I know that is what I have been trying to do for a long time and finding this blogsite has a lot of ways to do that.
To dyc4557
I am certain you are right.
Regarding the last paragraph of dyc4557 8:55 am Nov. 30 comment.
My research has shown that the Quorum of the annointed or Holy order had about 70 members (men and women) during the life time of the Prophet Joseph of which most of the 12 apostles were a part and in good standing, so one can see that this group was not an LDS church based priesthood group. The briefest and most consise statement I can think of as to the elemental relationship of people in this order is in D&C 76:94&95 especially the part about being equal in power and in might and in dominion. Well then if they are equal in power they are equal in authority, men and women, husbands and wives, men and men, women and women (people).
So how do I get a copy of CHI2 1998/9 or 2006, i know 2010 is available but I want to see the differences.
I don’t know about Book 2 — but you can read the 1998 Book 1 here.
J I L L I A R E wrote on another blog:
Emphasis mine.
Okay, so, does this mean that if a couple were to marry each other without a marriage license (just the two of them entering into a covenant), that they could go to the temple to get sealed (not married) and they would not be asked to show a marriage license? Is the above information accurate? Or do already married people have to show a license to be sealed in the temple?
My wife and I were sealed in the temple after a state-licenened marriage. Not only did the ChurchTM bar us from the temple until our one-year anniversary — but we were also required to show our state license as a condition for obtaining the recommend for living ordinances.
In other words my sealing was not my wedding — but the ChurchTM, to be subservient to the law, required that I have a state-licensed marriage before they would seal my marriage.
No the idea that the church is only filling out the information for your benefit and that they would perform a sealing ceremony without a state issued license is incorrect.
Up in the post I wrote this:
Paragraph 2 says a couple who are planning to be married must obtain a legal marriage license that is valid in the place where the marriage is to be performed.
The words, “a couple who are planning to be married must obtain a legal marriage license that is valid in the place where the marriage is to be performed.” are verbatim from the handbook.
When it comes to laws, rules and regulations purported intent is irrelevant. The way they must be judged is in their actual effect. And the effect is based upon how they are enforced. Those who make the regulations can see the effect and if at anytime the effect runs counter to their true intent then the regulations are changed.
Where in all the Church TM will you find a stake or mission president who will interpret the phrase “legally and lawfully wedded” and “a legal marriage license that is valid in the place where the marriage is to be performed” as being anything other than requiring the couple to submit their marriage to the state for approval/control? Justin’s experience is evidence of the way it is enforced. Stake presidents are normally released only after 10 years in the calling. I believe if there was a stake president who allowed someone to be sealed without a state issued license he would be released with 7 days of SLC verifying it.
No JILLARE probably also believes what the TSA does at airports has something to do with making us more secure.