The Prodigal'S Inheritance

[mercyngrace]

In April 2003, President James E. Faust said:

We remember that the prodigal son wasted his inheritance, and when it was all gone he came back to his father’s house. There he was welcomed back into the family, but his inheritance was spent.Mercy will not rob justice, and the sealing power of faithful parents will only claim wayward children upon the condition of their repentance and Christ’s Atonement. Repentant wayward children will enjoy salvation and all the blessings that go with it, but exaltation is much more. It must be fully earned. The question as to who will be exalted must be left to the Lord in His mercy.

In April 2012, Elder Robert D. Hales said:

Beloved brothers and sisters, the young man spoken about by the Savior, the one we refer to as the prodigal son, did come home. His father had not forgotten him; his father was waiting. And “when [the son] was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and … kissed him.” In honor of his son’s return, he called for a robe, a ring, and a celebration with a fatted calfreminders that no blessings will be withheld if we faithfully endure in walking the path back to our Heavenly Father.

Do you see these statements as contradictory? Why or why not?

[Libs]

Wasn't it Elder Holland who gave the talk comparing the parable of the Prodigal Son and the parable of the workers in the vineyard? Or did Elder Hale give a talk on that parable, as well? I didn't see Elder Hale's talk.

I do see those views as contradictory....and this parable has been of interest to me ever since I took a class (in an Orthodox Christian Church) based on this parable, where Elder Holland's view of the prodigal son, was upheld. That, all was forgiven and the younger son would receive all blessings from the Father.

I had a rather lengthy online discussion with a Latter-day Saint who took President Faust's view. He insisted that the younger son would not receive the same inheritance as the elder son, who was always faithful.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Libs

[Log]

"Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine."

The same was not said of the prodigal.

[JDave]

I think while blessings are not withheld, there are some things that can be permanently lost. The following story doesn't explain the difference between the quoted statements, but it is germane.

I keep looking for a story, that I thought was told by Elder Eyring, about a couple of home teachers. On their visit to a family, someone said something about repentance and being able to recover all that was lost. One of the home teachers poignantly expressed how some things can not be recovered. Due to some sins in his past he had been excommunicated, had gone through a divorce and lost his wife and children. While he was now back in full fellowship and his priesthood was restored, he would never be able to have his family back. Not sure who told the story, but I remember the lesson.

[Log]

You mean this.

[rpn]

At the least, the person who sins, even though repentant, loses innocence that he cannot reclaim. We lose opportunities we cannot recover, and knowledge. While none of this is deprived of blessings, each does suggest a consequence that affects the eternities, though not in God's judgment.

[Log]

At the least, the person who sins, even though repentant, loses innocence that he cannot reclaim.

That is false.

We lose opportunities we cannot recover, and knowledge.

That is true.

While none of this is deprived of blessings, each does suggest a consequence that affects the eternities, though not in God's judgment.

That may be true or false.

[JDave]

You mean this.

Yes! Thank you very much.

[ERayR]

Though thy sins shall be as scarlet...ye will be as pure as the driven snow. (not exact but close enough). You must give credit to repentance and the atonement. If one can not be restored to a pure state by repentance and the atonement then why bother? However, we are assured that if we repent we will become pure. Thus the hope of the gospel. If it were not so we all would be lost.

Edited April 7, 2012 by ERayR

[mercyngrace]

"Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine."

The same was not said of the prodigal.

And yet, it was the self-righteous elder brother who was left outside the feast.

Do you think the Lord was making a statement by ending the parable with the elder brother on the outside?

I actually think the words you quoted were a rebuke.

At any time, the son could have celebrated with his friends, He could have had a goat, which by the way has significantly less meat than a fatted calf and would have been a paltry meal by comparison (indicating that the elder brother saw his father as stingy and much less loving than he actually was). He could have made merry. Instead, the elder brother was so interested in earning his place as heir that he never felt the love of his father. He never realized that he could have been happy and celebrating all the while, and when he sees the joy of the father over the returned prodigal, he bitterly declares "You never even gave me a goat..."

His father must have been heartbroken to find that both his sons were lost rather than only the wanderer. Looking at his eldest, he declares, 'You have been here all along. You could have had a celebration anytime. All that I have is available to you.' and the painfully unspoken subtext is 'You never asked. You were too busy trying to work your way into my will to experience my love.'

Edited April 7, 2012 by mercyngrace

[mercyngrace]

Wasn't it Elder Holland who gave the talk comparing the parable of the Prodigal Son and the parable of the workers in the vineyard? Or did Elder Hale give a talk on that parable, as well? I didn't see Elder Hale's talk.

I do see those views as contradictory....and this parable has been of interest to me ever since I took a class (in an Orthodox Christian Church) based on this parable, where Elder Holland's view of the prodigal son, was upheld. That, all was forgiven and the younger son would receive all blessings from the Father.

I had a rather lengthy online discussion with a Latter-day Saint who took President Faust's view. He insisted that the younger son would not receive the same inheritance as the elder son, who was always faithful.

Elder Hale spoke of the prodigal immediately after Elder Holland - both talks were exceptional and, I fit together nicely.

I think that LDS tend toward Elder Faust's view (though we don't know that such is still his view) because we tend to focus more on works than grace. I think the talks by Elders Holland and Hale were course correcting in that vein.

[Kevin Christensen]

Joseph Smith's discussion of the parable we call "the Prodigal Son" impresses me most. TPJS, 276.

"I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire, what is the question which drew out the answer, or caused Jesus to utter the parable?"..."While Jesus was teaching the people, all the publicans and sinners drew near to hear Him: 'and the Pharisees and scribes murmured saying, "This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them.' (Like 15:2) "This is the keyword which unlocks the parable. It was given to answer the murmurings and questions of the Sadduces and Pharisees..."

The parables of the Lost sheep and the lost coin preceed the parable, and have the same theme. Had Jesus agreed with the murming, the parable could have said, that when the wandering son was a long way off, a steward met him and told him that he could have a job swilling the hogs, and that while he would be given food to eat, and while his past would never be mentioned directly, he was never to presume to address as Father the man who formerly had two sons, but who now only recognized one.

The readers who tend to the "justice" reading tend not to explain the obvious meaning of the best robe, the ring, and shoes, and fatted calf. They do like the "all that I have is thine bit," as though the father had limited resources which must be carefully husbanded because dividing them diminishes them. As a fan of the Myers-Briggs Type indicator, I think some of the readings derives from SJ or TJ preference for justice verus the NF preference for cirucmstances, and the SP live for the moment attitude as providing prodigal material. There is a bit of Rorschach self-disclosure going on in what people look for and find.

I do think that subsequent parable in Luke 18:9-14 addresses the same theme, concerning "certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous."

The parable of the man with two sons is left unresolved on the key issue as to whether the angry brother will relent, and will recognize his father as a father, rather than an employer he serves faithfully, and whether he will relent, forgive and rejoice. He claims that he has never transgressed any commandment, but what of the commandment to love and forgive all?

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited April 7, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Calm]

They do like the "all that I have is thine bit," as though the father had limited resources which must be carefully husbanded because dividing them diminishes them.

I have never understood in efforts of trying to strictly apply this parable to determine what will happen in the judgment why so many seem to ignore what to me is the obvious fact that takes the story into the divine, the inheritance that God gives us is not diminished by sharing it out to his children, but increased.

[Deborah]

The one thing that struck me when I heard this discussed in Conference this time wasn't that one gets more than the other but that God is willing to open his arms to all who return. I think if we all had true charity in our hearts we too would rejoice when the prodigal returns, not be envious of the welcoming they get.

The parable of the lost sheep is similar in that the shepherd goes out of his way to find the sheep that is lost, leaving the others. I think about that with my own children and when one child was having difficulties I would spend more time with that child. I used to hear from each of my children at various times how unfair I was and that so and so was getting the better deal. A child however doesn't understand the love of a parent and how we would sacrifice anything to bring all our children home when they are lost. I think on a larger scale, we as God's children still have that lesson to learn. Instead of thinking in terms of fair and unfair we should think in terms of how much our Father loves us all and how hard it must be when he sees one going astray. Is there not reason then to rejoice when the lost child returns. How much more could our Father rejoice if we too would rejoice with him.

[Libs]

The parable of the man with two sons is left unresolved on the key issue as to whether the angry brother will relent, and will recognize his father as a father, rather than an employer he serves faithfully, and whether he will relent, forgive and rejoice. He claims that he has never transgressed any commandment, but what of the commandment to love and forgive all?

Kevin, that was exactly one of the points made, in the class I took, on this parable. The elder son was actually in need of repentance, as well, and the Father was trying to move him in that direction. The elder son had gone through all of the motions of being a "loyal son", but his heart was not in the right place. This was a lesson for him, as well as the younger son. A lesson in forgiveness and unconditional love...attributes of the Father, that he wants to pass on to us.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

Elder Hale spoke of the prodigal immediately after Elder Holland - both talks were exceptional and, I fit together nicely.

I think that LDS tend toward Elder Faust's view (though we don't know that such is still his view) because we tend to focus more on works than grace. I think the talks by Elders Holland and Hale were course correcting in that vein.

Thanks, M&G. I'll have to listen to that one, as well.

[CV75]

Do you see these statements as contradictory? Why or why not?

I think we have two apostles teaching two distinct but equally valid lessons from the same parable.

Elder Bednar has an article on page 40 in the April Ensign, and touched on some of its themes in General Conference, which seemed to bridge these two ideas. He used Mosiah 3:19 to convey repentance (salvation) and then becoming holy (exaltation), both fruits of the Atonement of Christ.

I think that Elder Faust used the parable to convey the son’s return as symbolic of salvation, and Elder Hales to convey exaltation.

“Repentant wayward children will enjoy salvation and all the blessings that go with it, but exaltation is much more. It must be fully earned. The question as to who will be exalted [for those inclined to condemn or pardon in behalf of the the Lord] must be left to the Lord in His mercy.” Repentance leads to salvation.

Assuming we are leaving the question as to who will be exalted to the Lord in His mercy, “…no blessings will be withheld if we faithfully endure in walking the path back to our Heavenly Father.” Faithfully enduring is what it means to “fully earn.” Enduring (requiring the strengthening and enabling power of grace) leads to exaltation.

Edited April 7, 2012 by CV75

[Log]

While Kevin (who is one of my very favorite posters) is correct with respect to the scriptural context of the parable, I read it with application to my personal circumstances.

Let's just say I don't perceive myself to fit the role of the elder brother.

[mbh26]

Instead of thinking in terms of fair and unfair we should think in terms of how much our Father loves us all and how hard it must be when he sees one going astray

With our human perspective, thinking in terms of fair and unfair is what motivates people to do the right thing. If Mormons were to think only in terms of a Father who loves everyone when we're separated from that love and really can't experiece or understand it, I don't think the leadership would like the results that this would produce in how people choose to live their lives. Mormonism is more about works because it is a more demanding religion. Trying to get people to give up 10%, tithe on their life as a missionary, work a second job in a church calling etc. etc. is a hard sell based on gratitude alone. Maybe it'd fit philosophically if people did all this out of gratitude, but I don't think many of us are capable of that.

Edited April 7, 2012 by mbh26

[Deborah]

With our human perspective, thinking in terms of fair and unfair is what motivates people to do the right thing.

I disagree. In fact the highest motivation to do good is simply because we love others and desire to do good with no selfish end in mind. Thinking in terms of fair and unfair can actually lead to a lot of unkind acts. The Father does indeed love everyone. I love all my children, even though a couple of them are themselves prodigals. We don't necessarily treat everyone the same because they have different needs and we just can't react the same to what we think is wrong, but there is certainly no reason not to love them and keep the door open for their return.

[mbh26]

Maybe it is the highest level of motivation to do everything just out of love of god alone. But sin does exist in this world, so obviously not everyone possesses that love. What happens to those people who don't possess that innate love of God that motivates them to endure all things? Is it just a question of whether you have it or you don't? Is that where it all ends? Inevitably we're back to works, and since those works are a decision that each individual makes, would there not be many possible outcomes. Nobody makes the right decision every time and nobody makes the wrong decision every time. I don't think salvation is an all or nothing situation either.

[mercyngrace]

Let's just say I don't perceive myself to fit the role of the elder brother.

Given the portrayal of the elder brother, I think none of us want to perceive ourselves as fitting his role.

I think the power of the parable is that is compels us to look inside ourselves. The character who should be the hero, ultimately, isn't. The character who starts out as the villain, experiences a change of heart and is celebrated home. Christ was such a masterful teacher that with just a few words, He peels back our prejudices, undermines our expectations, and invites us to completely change our vantage point. And in different circumstances, in different relationships, and at different times, we may play the part of any one of the parable's characters which again, compels us to look beyond "kinds" of people and see instead the the attributes, sinful or saving, accessible to every child of God.

To call His teaching masterful is an embarrassing understatement.

[CV75]

What happens to those people who don't possess that innate love of God that motivates them to endure all things?

If God's garce is the only thing that brings such love, then those that don't have it, and want it, get it. He loved us first, so something spurs us on to repentance, no matter how hateful we might be.

[The Nehor]

At the least, the person who sins, even though repentant, loses innocence that he cannot reclaim. We lose opportunities we cannot recover, and knowledge.

I disagree. If the atonement is infinite it can correct this too.

[bluebell]

I think this is one of the parables that you can take farther than it was meant to go.

In reality, the returned son has no more inheritance. He is welcome at his father's home, but he has spent his inheritance and can't have anymore without robbing the other son.

But of course, the inheritance that we seek after from our Heavenly Father doesn't work that way. It's not diminshed by being shared and always available to the repentant (if not, no one would get it because no one on the earth has ever lived without sinning).

However, I'm wondering if Elder Faust was trying to convey the idea that wayward children of sealed parents are not guaranteed exaltation just because of their parent's sealing. I don't know though.