Temble Sealing Guaranteeing Salvation For Children?

[CMZ]

Seems conditional on their acceptance.

I never said to do away with that part either.

[T-Shirt]

I have a hypothetical situation that I would be interested in getting comments on. Suppose that twin brothers, together, leave the Church in their teen years. They move out and room together and live a less than moral life, openly criticizing the Church, even going to the point of trying to get others to leave the Church. They are dishonest, abusive and generally vile characters.

Now, suppose that one evening, at the age of twenty-three, while out in an evening of riotous living, they are involved in a car accident, in which one of them is killed. The surviving brother goes on to see things differently and goes to great lengths to repent and eventually is welcomed into the Church in full fellowship, is endowed, married in the temple and lives an exemplary and faithful life.

Will the brother who was killed be denied the opportunities of his brother, simply for not having had the same amount of time as the other, or will he get the same opportunity in the spirit world?

T-Shirt

[William James]

I have a hypothetical situation that I would be interested in getting comments on. Suppose that twin brothers, together, leave the Church in their teen years. They move out and room together and live a less than moral life, openly criticizing the Church, even going to the point of trying to get others to leave the Church. They are dishonest, abusive and generally vile characters.

Now, suppose that one evening, at the age of twenty-three, while out in an evening of riotous living, they are involved in a car accident, in which one of them is killed. The surviving brother goes on to see things differently and goes to great lengths to repent and eventually is welcomed into the Church in full fellowship, is endowed, married in the temple and lives an exemplary and faithful life.

Will the brother who was killed be denied the opportunities of his brother, simply for not having had the same amount of time as the other, or will he get the same opportunity in the spirit world?

T-Shirt

In my opinion, complete justice demands that the killed brother have the same opportunity for enlightenment. Your hypo is one example of why I believe nearly everybody or everybody will eventually be saved, and that when people go astray, it is almost always due in part to their not being fully enlightened.

[William James]

"The Prophet Joseph Smith declaredâ??and he never taught more comforting doctrineâ??that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving fatherâ??s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain." (emphasis added)

For everyone believing in the above quote as being entirely accurate, do you also therefore believe that a person who is not eventually saved might fairly be told the following?:

"Sorry, buddy, your parents were not eternally saved, and the 'eye of the Shepherd' was therefore not on you as much as it was upon your neighbor, who went equally astray, but who, through no merit of his own, had the fortune of his parents having been eternally sealed; therefore, God made 'divine promises' to his parents for 'valiant service in the Cause of Truth,' which saved not only themselves, but their son. Though your neighbor wandered, the tentacles of Divine Providence reached out to him and drew him back into the fold."

If you believe this, then I submit that you believe God is a respecter of persons. How unfair this would be to anyone not born to sealed parents!! Inasmuch as Article of Faith #2 provides that man will be punished for their own sins and not Adam's transgression, a logical extension must follow that man will be saved through his OWN obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, and not by someone else's obedience, such as his parents. Otherwise, aren't we in effect saying that all of the children of unsealed parents might be denied extra repentance opportunities because of their parents' unfaithfulness in not living the Gospel and being sealed?

Comforting as the doctrine may be to the parents of wayward children, it is a gross error. (likewise is the doctrine of automatic salvation for children who die before the age of accountability)

[PacMan]

One semantic argument that I have yet heard (and a bit surprised by it) is, what is salvation? Clearly, salvation is needed for exaltation, but the reverse is not true. What is salvation, what are it's levels, and what is, or is not permitted as pertaining to free-agency?

That being said, I also believe that most people will end up being saved. Given certain understanding, all would "Choose the Right," except for the most pompous arrogates. For example, even Alma the Younger was given the chance to repent, a cause of his Father's faith. Alma Sr.'s faith, however, didn't do the convincing, but was the way in which the angels were sent. Alma Jr. was convincing was his own doing...and such I believe is the promise to faithful parents.

PacMan

[Lightbearer]

For everyone believing in the above quote as being entirely accurate, do you also therefore believe that a person who is not eventually saved might fairly be told the following?:

"Sorry, buddy, your parents were not eternally saved, and the 'eye of the Shepherd' was therefore not on you as much as it was upon your neighbor, who went equally astray, but who, through no merit of his own, had the fortune of his parents having been eternally sealed; therefore, God made 'divine promises' to his parents for 'valiant service in the Cause of Truth,' which saved not only themselves, but their son. Though your neighbor wandered, the tentacles of Divine Providence reached out to him and drew him back into the fold."

If you believe this, then I submit that you believe God is a respecter of persons. How unfair this would be to anyone not born to sealed parents!! Inasmuch as Article of Faith #2 provides that man will be punished for their own sins and not Adam's transgression, a logical extension must follow that man will be saved through his OWN obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, and not by someone else's obedience, such as his parents. Otherwise, aren't we in effect saying that all of the children of unsealed parents might be denied extra repentance opportunities because of their parents' unfaithfulness in not living the Gospel and being sealed?

Comforting as the doctrine may be to the parents of wayward children, it is a gross error. (likewise is the doctrine of automatic salvation for children who die before the age of accountability)

The idea that God will save anyone against their will is not true. There is no "once saved always saved" equivalent doctrine in the Church. It is true that the Lord will seek after and help them but if they continue to stubbornly rebel against God the sealing has no power. As for your last comment:"(likewise is the doctrine of automatic salvation for children who die before the age of accountability)"

That I totally disagree with you, because of the following:

(D&C 137:10) "And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven."

That I believe because it is scripture.

[Helorum]

This is an 'Oscar Meyer Doctrine' ---- it's BALONEY.

Orson F. Whitney is paraphrasing a Joseph Smith statement from the History of the Church.

The Joseph Smith statement in the History of the Church is incomplete (see Ehat and Cook, Words of Joseph Smith). The complete quotation changes the doctrinal perspective. This issue has been dealt with in one of the appendices of an LDS book called The Plan of Salvation.

If a General Authority quotes the Orson F. Whitney statement they are ultimately relying on an UNRELIABLE document.

If a General Authority quotes Joseph Smith (either from the History of the Church or the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith) they are relying on an UNRELIABLE document.

I won't get a free ride into the presence of God because I am sealed to my parents - and neither will anyone else. Everyone is accountable for their own beliefs and actions. Nobody can violate another person's agency . . . NOT EVEN GOD. Drawing comfort from a false 'doctrine' is not a good idea.

Adam and Eve were sealed, but that didn't save Cain

BRAVO!!!

[CMZ]

I won't get a free ride into the presence of God because I am sealed to my parents - and neither will anyone else. Everyone is accountable for their own beliefs and actions. Nobody can violate another person's agency . . . NOT EVEN GOD. Drawing comfort from a false 'doctrine' is not a good idea.

BRAVO!!!

Nobody said anything about a free ride. If that's what you think it's about then you are misunderstanding the whole thing. Read this part again:

They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving fatherâ??s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain.

It's not about God looking the other way and indiscriminately handing out unmerited freebies.

[freakin a man]

I recently spoke with a TBM whose son left the church and is living with his girlfriend. The TBM mother told me that, although she was extremely disappointed, she had done some research on the subject and determined that at least four modern day LDS prophets have said something to the effect that, the temple sealing power is "so strong," that all wayward children sealed to their sealed parents, will eventually come back to the fold and embrace the Gospel.

With all sympathy for the heartache any parent feels when they perceive their children to be going astray, I think that doctrine is hogwash, regardless of whether any prophet has stated it. That doctrine flies in the face of my conviction that every individual alone has stewardship over their own salvation. This is so, even though I believe that the overwhelming majority of people will eventually be "saved" and experience eternal happiness, and that few if any souls will be damned to hell or an eternity in the Terrestrial Kingdom. I suppose this TBM's belief could be reconciled with my own if you consider that, in my view, nearly everyone will end up coming to a knowledge of the truth and being saved anyway, but it wouldn't be as a result of the "sealing power" helping the sealed wayward children but not the unsealed wayward children.

Two questions:

1) Do you tend to agree or disagree with this woman?

2) Does anyone know of any prophetic quotes that would support her doctrinal position?

I think the faithful parents remain sealed to their children regardless of what the children do. However this does not mean that the children are in the Celestial Kingdom with them. We do know that people in a higher kingdom can visit those in a lower one. Perhaps this is how they remain a family even though they are not always together.

[Helorum]

Nobody said anything about a free ride. If that's what you think it's about then you are misunderstanding the whole thing.

The "whole thing" is based on a BOGUS document.

How exactly can it be true in any degree?

Orson F. Whitney's 'theology' with regard to this issue is based on a BOGUS document. It is not reliable.

[CMZ]

The "whole thing" is based on a BOGUS document.

How exactly can it be true in any degree?

When none of the quotes (whether bogus or not) say anything about a "free ride" then it is entirely illogical for you to attack the "free ride" nature of it all. You might do well to read the whole thread again. Some of the quotes have to do with a correct understanding of the sealing power regardless of what Joseph SMith may have said or not said about it. If you don't understand the sealing power then it may be wise to hold your peace and not jump to hasty conclusions.

[Helorum]

You might do well to read the whole thread again.

You might do well to read the published material that has been referenced.

[CMZ]

You're still missing the point. Why would you react against it by saying, "Nobody gets a free ride!!!" when none of the quotes imply a free ride? If you can answer that then we'll be getting somewhere. None of the quotes does away with individual accountability and I have never said they do.

[MJNSW]

You're still missing the point. Why would you react against it by saying, "Nobody gets a free ride!!!" when none of the quotes imply a free ride? If you can answer that then we'll be getting somewhere. None of the quotes does away with individual accountability and I have never said they do.

I may be wrong... but in reading this whole thread and the comments you are trying to understand or comment too I get a different understanding. I don't think that it is a matter of free ride - but that the quote gives false hope to those who are sealed. Thinking that the child will return because of that 1 action. In that it is very incorrect.

Then that is were accountability comes in - each child does account for their own actions and has the right to make their own choices, thus there are no guarantees that because the parents were sealed that the children will return at any given point.

I think it all comes down to false hope and possibly false doctrine.

[CMZ]

each child does account for their own actions and has the right to make their own choices

I'll keep repeating it until my fingers turn blue: Yes, I know that.

There's still a big point here most people seem to be missing. For me to have to point it out will be dumbing things down too much. This whole discussion going on here seems very similar to somebody saying, "So, are we saved by grace or works? Which one is it? Grace? Works? Grace or works? Okay, hurry up, pick one or the other. One is right and the other is wrong. Pick which one you think is right and tell me what you think and you sure as heck better give me the right answer." (To clear up confusion I'm not the one asking the grace/works question; I am merely making an analogy.)

[MJNSW]

I believe it is our own conduct and actions that help us achieve exaltation. Not what our parents did or where they did it!

I have seen parents who were sealed in the temple and then had affairs or committed serious sins.... so what does that say of the temple sealings? IN my opinion, absolutely nothing! The temple is a goal to reach for some... but anyone can get into a temple and make promises they intend or don't intend to keep. All in all it comes down to individuals and their own true desires and their personal relationships with God that matters. Nothing else!

That poor mother can think what she wants, but unfortunately she is grasping at straws.

I'll keep repeating it until my fingers turn blue: Yes, I know that. There's still a big point here most people seem to be missing. For me to have to point it out will be dumbing things down too much. This whole discussion going on here seems very similar to somebody saying, "So, are we saved by grace or works? Which one is it? Grace? Works? Grace or works? Okay, hurry up, pick one or the other. One is right and the other is wrong. Pick which one you think is right and tell me what you think and you sure as heck better give me the right answer."

I think you may need to go through and read through all the posts again! I did give my answer a while back. Your fight is not making sense that is all!

[CMZ]

MJNSW, I'm not asking you to give me an answer on anything (read my post again; I was using an analogy, not demanding answers from anyone). I have read every word of this thread. What I am saying is that people here don't know how to reconcile two different concepts that on the surface appear contradictory. Almost everyone is saying, "Well, one statement says, 'The sealing of parents will save their children,' but another one says, 'We are all accountable for our individual actions.' Those statements appear to contradict one another so obviously at least one of them must be false. We pick the former statement as being false." But there's a way to stitch it all together. The sum and substance and tone and tenor of what I have been saying is: don't create false dichotomies.

[MJNSW]

MJNSW, I'm not asking you to give me an answer on anything (read my post again; I was using an analogy, not demanding answers from anyone). I have read every word of this thread. What I am saying is that people here don't know how to reconcile two different concepts that on the surface appear contradictory. Almost everyone is saying, "Well, one statement says, 'The sealing of parents will save their children,' but another one says, 'We are all accountable for our individual actions.' Those statements appear to contradict one another so obviously at least one of them must be false. We pick the former statement as being false." But there's a way to stitch it all together.

And how is that? Because if you take two statements like that I just don't see how it is possible to link the 2.

[CMZ]

Because if you take two statements like that I just don't see how it is possible to link the 2.

Yes, and this is the same problem the born-agains have: "If we are saved by Christ's grace then how could our own works matter?"

[William James]

CMZ and others with similar points of view:

I'll gladly concede the following: It is by no means a free ride for someone to obtain salvation/exhaltation only after their sincere repentance and suffering for their sins.

However, "free rides" are not the issue here; what is at issue is whether a person has any greater assurance/opportunity/likelihood of exhaltation than another based upon circumstances not relating to his own merit (i.e., that his parents happen to be sealed).

Let's get a few things straight. First, God is perfectly just. He is no respecter of persons. Therefore, he would not allow for person A (whose parents are sealed) to have any greater assurance of salvation/exhaltation than person B (whose parents are not sealed). Now it may ultimately turn out that A and B (or rather, all people in the world who fall into either category) will all be saved/exhalted (a very real possibility in my opinion). But the minute we believe that B, equally as sinful and undeserving as A, has no assurance that he will ultimately be saved/exhalted because God will at some point give up on B because B keeps rejecting God, but that God never gives up on A no matter how many times A turns away from God (on account of A's parents being sealed, and thus guaranteeing that at some point throughout eternity, A will repent), then God is unjust and becomes a respecter of persons.

I can live with the idea that other people's actions will affect (1) our experiences in life; and (2) the speed and timing of our eternal progression. Those are inevitable consequences of agency. But what would be highly unjust would be for God to allow any person's eternal and final predicament to depend upon circumstances beyond the individual's control.

[CMZ]

However, "free rides" are not the issue here;

I know. That's what I kept saying over and over again.

But what would be highly unjust would be for God to allow any person's eternal and final predicament to depend upon circumstances beyond the individual's control.

Like somebody atoning for their sins?

The answer that resolves this issue has been given in this thread but people seem to have completely overlooked it. Strange that everyone here wants to throw out all the prophetic statements on this issue. Even if there's a question over what Joseph Smith said the Lorenzo Snow quote doesn't say it's based on anything Joseph Smith said. It's the prophet Lorenzo Snow teaching the gospel and the same principle has been reiterated recently in conference. But that means nothing to the board members here.

BTW, there's another huge point that seems to be missed: none of these statements say that a person can only be exalted if their parents had been sealed in the temple. Reading such a concept into the statements then arguing against your inaccurate perception of the statements only confuses the issue.

[William James]

But what would be highly unjust would be for God to allow any person's eternal and final predicament to depend upon circumstances beyond the individual's control.

Like somebody atoning for their sins?

The answer that resolves this issue has been given in this thread but people seem to have completely overlooked it. Strange that everyone here wants to throw out all the prophetic statements on this issue. Even if there's a question over what Joseph Smith said the Lorenzo Snow quote doesn't say it's based on anything Joseph Smith said. It's the prophet Lorenzo Snow teaching the gospel and the same principle has been reiterated recently in conference. But that means nothing to the board members here.

BTW, there's another huge point that seems to be missed: none of these statements say that a person can only be exalted if their parents had been sealed in the temple. Reading such a concept into the statements then arguing against your inaccurate perception of the statements only confuses the issue.

This post has been edited by CMZ: Today, 12:45 PM

CMZ, first point:

With respect to Christ's atonement, since it is universally available to all mankind "through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel," God's deciding to exhalt a person based upon their being covered by the atonement does not make God a respecter of persons since acceptance of Christ is ultimately the effort and merit of the individual; the atonement is available to all.

Second point: I never claimed or implied that the advocates of this faulty doctrine are saying that "a person can only be exalted if their parents had been sealed in the temple." I totally realize that you and others who believe this doctrine are not saying that. Of course all people who accept and live the Gospel will be saved. The instant question concerns the wayward ones who turn away from God and righteousness. What happens to them? It makes no sense whatsoever to console sealed parents by telling them that, on account of the sealing, their wayward children will eventually return to God because of the promises God has made to the parents. Doesn't that necessarily imply that unsealed parents have no such assurance?

Third point: I realize that TBMs tend to focus on whether particular doctrines were actually taught by prophets, rather than whether the doctrines themselves appear sound. I am not making a stink about whether Joseph Smith, Lorenzo Snow, or anyone else taught the doctrine. I think the doctrine is simply unsound, period, no matter who preached it. Even prophets err, and we need look no further than the Church's present official stance with regard to things Brigham Young said to establish that concession. The doctrine that more of God's attention (i.e., "the eye of the Shepherd") is given to some people than to others depending upon whose parents are sealed is simply ridiculous and contradicts the justness and fairness of God. Give me one good reason why I, as a child of unsealed parents, should have any less blessing, promise, or God-given advantage than my neighbor whose parents are sealed (apart from natural consequences in effect during mortality, i.e., being raised in the faith, etc.).

[CMZ]

Your misunderstanding is clouding everything. Instead of saying, "I think I'll put this on the shelf until I understand it better," your reaction is, "That's totally false!!!!!!"

Give me one good reason why I, as a child of unsealed parents, should have any less blessing, promise, or God-given advantage than my neighbor whose parents are sealed

I never said that. Exaltation is freely available to you.

There's a big point that's still being missed here. Once it's understood everything will clear up.

[William James]

Your misunderstanding is clouding everything. Instead of saying, "I think I'll put this on the shelf until I understand it better," your reaction is, "That's totally false!!!!!!"

QUOTE

Give me one good reason why I, as a child of unsealed parents, should have any less blessing, promise, or God-given advantage than my neighbor whose parents are sealed

I never said that. Exaltation is freely available to you.

There's a big point that's still being missed here. Once it's understood everything will clear up.

1. I take your response of, "I never said that" to mean that you agree that: There IS NO GOOD REASON why I, as a child of unsealed parents, should have any less blessing, promise, or God-given advantage than my neighbor whose parents are sealed.

2. Therefore, I take it you are conceding that: Someone whose parents ARE sealed doesn't get anything extra thereby from God.

3. Therefore: Parents who are sealed cannot take comfort in feeling that THEIR children will get any extra attention or help from God than the children of unsealed parents.

Now, please spare me the riddles, and help me figure out the "big point" I'm missing. Thanks.

[CMZ]

Parents who are sealed cannot take comfort in feeling that THEIR children will get any extra attention or help from God than the children of unsealed parents.

The issue is not about comparing or saying that somebody has an advantage over somebody else. None of the quotes in question say, "And those people whose parents haven't been sealed in the temple are without hope." When you bring that into it it muddies everything.

The problem here is that we are looking at one quote in isolation. If it seems to contradict another gospel principle then we say it must be false instead of saying that we will withhold judgment unless and until we get further information.

Joseph Smith taught that â??the things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them outâ? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 137). In our gospel teaching experiences, I wonder how deeply we go. Do we plumb the depths of the gospel with our students, or do we quickly skim over the high points?

http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2007/02/14/deep-import/