Wayward Children article in Mar Ensign

[Seminarysnoozer]

Here's another take on it. This according to "church" (as opposed to "the church"):

When and if we make the Celestial Kingdom we will theoretically have all time before us constantly. Time will be meaningless, past, present and future. Also, for those of us exalted, we will be omniscient. Therefore, those who are not in the Celestial Kingdom only have access to others when-and-if others literally, physically visit them. Those exalted, on the other hand, know all things, including the constant thoughts of all others, and view all times at once, including the time they are/were physically with others (past, present and future) and in that way are literally with them at all times. Thereby we are together forever if exalted and not together forever if not.

It's a theory, at least. :)

This is maybe a topic for another thread but I know it has already been discussed; just because someone can see all time doesn't mean it is "meaningless". God's work and glory is in the "bringing to pass", which requires the passing of time.

There is something that isn't known until it happens, one cannot know that a job is well done until it is done. One can know that it will be done but that obviously is not the same as God's glory and work is in the realization of the event and not just the potential or creating something spiritually without carrying it out. In other words, there is more value to God in the eternal life of any man after it is done compared to before it is done even if He knows it will happen. At least, that is how I interpret the phrase "to bring to pass" as it relates to God's work and glory. The first estate test may have been enough if it was enough to say we would obey without actually having to do it. We are here, so carrying it out, passing the time, is meaningful to God and us.

[Anddenex]

When I first heard about President Young's and Elder Whitney's statements I begin to search for answer which correlated with scripture (i.e. this a probationary state and our time to prepare to meet God, wailing and gnashing of teeth, three kingdoms, personal choice and righteousness, personal disobedience and captivity).

Elder Bednar's words aren't modern words, Joseph Fielding Smith said something similar and according to scripture his words seem to me to be the most correct. With regard to President Young's words, the question has always entered into my mind, if a parent doesn't remain faithful then who would save them (actually exalt them like people are suggesting or implying this is what President Young and Elder Whitney taught)? Why would one disobedient child be exalted, although they chose captivity in this life, while another (because they didn't have parents who kept their covenants) should be damned; although they also chose the same path of captivity? Where is the justice? How far does this justice extend down the line of inheritance...all the way back to Adam?

Here is Jospeh Fielding Smith's take, and it appears to coincide with Elder Bednar:

"Salvation is an individual matter, and if a person who has been born under the covenant rebels and denies the Lord, he will lose the blessings of exaltation...We cannot force salvation upon those who do not want it. Even our Father's children had their agency before this life, and one-third of them rebelled....

"But children born under the covenant, who drift away, are still the children of their parents; and the parents have a claim upon them; and if the children have not sinned away all their rights, the parents may be able to bring them through repentance, into the celestial kingdom, but not to receive the exaltation. Of course, if children sin to grievously, they will have to enter the telestial kingdom, or they may even become sons of perdition." (Doctrines of Salvation, Book 2, pg. 91)

As pertaining to a loss, I believe, it would appear from scripture David is a great example of one who desires exaltation but has fallen from such, or as the Lord stated, "therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation"...if David could fall from exaltation (it is evident, as to my understanding in the Old Testament that David even sought repentance for his crime against Uriah), then anybody else could despite our parent's obedience.

[The Folk Prophet]

"But children born under the covenant, who drift away, are still the children of their parents; and the parents have a claim upon them; and if the children have not sinned away all their rights, the parents may be able to bring them through repentance, into the celestial kingdom, but not to receive the exaltation. Of course, if children sin to grievously, they will have to enter the telestial kingdom, or they may even become sons of perdition." (Doctrines of Salvation, Book 2, pg. 91)

All children who drift away are still the children of God and God has a claim on them, and if the children have not sinned away all their rights, does not God love them more than any parent could ever love any child on this earth, and would He not bring them through repentance regardless of who their parents were, into the celestial kingdom, were it possible?

I don't have a problem with Joseph F. Smith's teaching here. I just think it will be true of all mankind. God will save everyone He can and will save no one He cannot. The covenant of the parents have meaning, but no more meaning than the love God has for all of us.

Of course you said the same thing already, but I'm just responding to it in terms of the quote here.

In other words, I believe the principle that parent's righteousness and love matters to their children's salvation. But I believe that it matters no more than does their Eternal Parent's righteousness and love. Or a neighbors righteousness and love. Or a temple goers righteousness and love on behalf of someone dead. Or, etc., etc., etc...

[james12]

I did use the word "parent" in my prior post, and apologize if it created a distraction--but I don't really hang my hat on the means of creation or the sense in which one is a "parent". Substitute the term "creator" or "teacher" or "friend", if you will; but the simple fact is that there were souls that God, of Himself, would prefer to see "saved" (however you define the word), but who will not be.

In the context of this discussion we must talk about parents and their children. The promise is to parents of wayward children. No doubt God would like all people saved, however, he is not their physical Father. As spirits, we were sons and daughters of God, but of course we passed our first estate. There is only one form of creation for men and women, as Brigham Young said:

God created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that will ever be. (JD 11:22)

And so I have compared God's son to our sons and daughters. Christ is saved, and the priesthood remains with him for all eternity.

I don't see how this contradicts anything I've written, though. Exaltation isn't primarily who you're with, or even where you are. It's what you are. You don't have to be celestialized to be "bound" to a celestial parent--the Terrestrial Kingdom being Exhibit A.

So I see there has been a bit of a discussion on this point. When BY says, "They will return to the fountain from whence they sprung" he is talking about children being with their righteous parents. As you have commented there is a separation between kingdoms. This earth life is evidence of that separation. We cannot see God unless we change. We are blind in our minds and hard in our hearts. A child in a lower kingdom is separated from their parents just as we are separated from God. This cannot be the meaning of the word sealing. As I said, it dilutes the entire promise.

Children are sealed as heirs to their parents, as Christ is an heir to his Father. Our children are likewise heirs. Christ was one with his Father as we may be one with our children. Christ and the Father are united through the Spirit. Distance has no effect on this union.

[james12]

All children who drift away are still the children of God and God has a claim on them, and if the children have not sinned away all their rights, does not God love them more than any parent could ever love any child on this earth, and would He not bring them through repentance regardless of who their parents were, into the celestial kingdom, were it possible?

I don't have a problem with Joseph F. Smith's teaching here. I just think it will be true of all mankind. God will save everyone He can and will save no one He cannot. The covenant of the parents have meaning, but no more meaning than the love God has for all of us.

Of course you said the same thing already, but I'm just responding to it in terms of the quote here.

In other words, I believe the principle that parent's righteousness and love matters to their children's salvation. But I believe that it matters no more than does their Eternal Parent's righteousness and love. Or a neighbors righteousness and love. Or a temple goers righteousness and love on behalf of someone dead. Or, etc., etc., etc...

Church, your last paragraph adequately describes the very problem this modified description of sealing can present. It can lead one to conclude that an eternal bond between parent and child matters no more than anyone else's love and concern for another person. I say no! The Lord's promises are not so weak. A couple who has their calling and election made sure, who has been sealed up unto eternal life, and who have been sealed to their children, will, with the help of the Lord, draw their children back unto them. It may not be in this life, it may extend beyond the bounds of our current realm of understanding, but they will come back. And by come back I do not mean saved in the Telestial kingdom, this is no promise at all. No, father, mother, and child, saved in the Celestial kingdom, bound together through everlasting bonds.

[Just_A_Guy]

In the context of this discussion we must talk about parents and their children.

Very well; but I fail to see, theologically, why being the parent "after the flesh" of a child gives one a higher ability to save that child than God Himself has. I don't think God is so limited.

When BY says, "They will return to the fountain from whence they sprung" he is talking about children being with their righteous parents.

Is he? In Alma 40:11, Alma teaches Corianton that on death all spirits, whether good or evil, "are taken home to that God who gave them life". We know that this is a bit of prophetic hyperbole--the evil spirits still belong to God; but they are certainly not "home" in His presence at that point.

As you have commented there is a separation between kingdoms. This earth life is evidence of that separation. We cannot see God unless we change. We are blind in our minds and hard in our hearts. A child in a lower kingdom is separated from their parents just as we are separated from God.

But if we read Young's promise very carefully, it seems to be made to the parents, not to the children. From the parents' perspective--they do still have claim on the children, and can be with them at their desires.

Young isn't saying "hey, kids--make sure your parents live their covenants and you, too, can attain Celestial glory without any further commitment on your part!" He's saying "parents, if your kids are being snots--keep your covenants and know that they won't be eternally lost to you". There's a difference.

This cannot be the meaning of the word sealing. As I said, it dilutes the entire promise.

The interpretation itself "dilutes the promise" because we--in fact, everyone alive today--are already descendants of people who made those covenants--Adam, Noah, Abraham, and so on. Why make the covenants again, if we're already "covered" by those made by our forefathers? And guaranteeing a place in the Celestial Kingdom to every descendant of Adam (even if you exclude the sons of perdition) seems to have its own dilusive qualities.

Even if you decide that, no, to be effective the parental sealing must be renewed at each generation: It would "make reason stare", to use Eliza Snow's phrase, to suggest that where two people have lived more-or-less equivalent lives and made more-or-less equivalent choices, the one will merit a place in the Celestial Kingdom while the other will merit only a Telestial glory, solely by virtue of the parents to whom they were born. As I understand it, Mormonism acknowledges and accepts inequalities in mortality as being commensurate with the justice of God, precisely because those inequalities won't be determinative of our final eternal state.

I much prefer the prospect of "dilution" (which, as near as I can tell, really boils down to the idea that I turn out to be not quite as special as I thought I was), to the apparent injustice of such a regimen.

Children are sealed as heirs to their parents, as Christ is an heir to his Father. Our children are likewise heirs.

Granted, but of course an inheritance can be disclaimed by the beneficiary and there's ultimately nothing the testator can do about it. The scriptures are replete with the stories of children who forfeited their birthrights.

Christ was one with his Father as we may be one with our children.

Christ did not attain His unity with the Father solely by birthright; He had to (in McConkie's words) work out His own salvation in mortality.

Christ and the Father are united through the Spirit. Distance has no effect on this union.

Agreed. But I submit that individual wickedness does precisely that.

It can lead one to conclude that an eternal bond between parent and child matters no more than anyone else's love and concern for another person. I say no! The Lord's promises are not so weak.

The interpretation I subscribe to doesn't make the promise "weak"; it just requires that the promise be interpreted slightly differently than the way most Church members have tended to interpret it in the past.

Think of it like the blessings of doing temple work for one's ancestors: The power of the promise does not lie in its being able to trump individual agency; the power of the promise comes in the quality of the bond it forms between the parties. It's not that the child (or ancestor, in the case of proxy temple work) has been saved per se--that would have happened with or without me. It's that I was, in this case, the means of salvation for that particular individual; and thereby became a Savior on Mount Zion.

Put another way: If a child falls into a pool with twenty lifeguards at the perimeter, does the child discount the lifeguard who ultimately saved him just because he figures his salvation was pretty much inevitable? Certainly not! There will be an eternal and unique bond between the rescuer and the rescued, because of the rescuer's specific actions--and that bond will remain regardless of what ultimately becomes of the child, whether he ultimately grows up to be a lawyer, or a paralegal, or an mail clerk.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Church, your last paragraph adequately describes the very problem this modified description of sealing can present. It can lead one to conclude that an eternal bond between parent and child matters no more than anyone else's love and concern for another person. I say no! The Lord's promises are not so weak. A couple who has their calling and election made sure, who has been sealed up unto eternal life, and who have been sealed to their children, will, with the help of the Lord, draw their children back unto them. It may not be in this life, it may extend beyond the bounds of our current realm of understanding, but they will come back. And by come back I do not mean saved in the Telestial kingdom, this is no promise at all. No, father, mother, and child, saved in the Celestial kingdom, bound together through everlasting bonds.

I think your philosophy (and similar interpretations through the years) suffers from a disconnect in that you are applying a non-conditional status to the sealing covenant between children and parents that is not, and cannot be applied towards any covenant, as clearly taught in a myriad of scriptures. Specifically:

All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise,...are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

The key there is "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise", which is conditional, for as we know:

I, the Lord, am abound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

When was there ever a promise given by the Lord that was not conditional? And how do those conditions make the promises of the Lord weak?

The holy spirit of promise is a ratification based on the obedience of those involved.

Moreover, we have concepts such as:

For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.

...which clearly teaches that those raised in the gospel and go astray have a greater chance of condemnation because of their parents.

Concerning, "It can lead one to conclude that an eternal bond between parent and child matters no more than anyone else's love and concern for another person. I say no!"

I do not necessarily disagree with you. In fact I think you are right and I have always felt that this is true. But can you back this up with something? Philosophically speaking, I cannot understand it even though I believe it to be right. How can it even be logical to be physically, eternally be with parents who are also physically, eternally with their parents, who are also physically, eternally with their...etc., etc... Do you not see that that would put us all, everyone from Adam down who were sealed, together physically, and thereby would render physical proximity no more special with one's children than with any who were part of the sealed family?

The point being, there has to be something else at play than just being with each other. It seems that there are truths concerning forever families that have not yet been revealed.

[estradling75]

I think the story of Alma the younger and the Son of Mosiah could be an example of this concept playing out.

[Anddenex]

All children who drift away are still the children of God and God has a claim on them, and if the children have not sinned away all their rights, does not God love them more than any parent could ever love any child on this earth, and would He not bring them through repentance regardless of who their parents were, into the celestial kingdom, were it possible?

I don't have a problem with Joseph F. Smith's teaching here. I just think it will be true of all mankind. God will save everyone He can and will save no one He cannot. The covenant of the parents have meaning, but no more meaning than the love God has for all of us.

Of course you said the same thing already, but I'm just responding to it in terms of the quote here.

In other words, I believe the principle that parent's righteousness and love matters to their children's salvation. But I believe that it matters no more than does their Eternal Parent's righteousness and love. Or a neighbors righteousness and love. Or a temple goers righteousness and love on behalf of someone dead. Or, etc., etc., etc...

I agree. God will save all,via repentance, which doesn't deny justice. As we know from scripture, justice must be upheld for God to remain God, otherwise he would cease to be God.

Yet, I would specify that God's love and a parent's love would have more efficacy in relation to their offspring than a neighbor's love...my personal thoughts.

At the same time, I won't deny the possibility of an eternal principle that has not yet been revealed. My concer with these types of quotes stems from these types of statements from our youth and young adults. My brother witnessed the baptism of a young man. After the young man's baptism, the couple fornicated, as they had been doing before his baptism. Her response to my brother, "My parents will save (exalt) me." Will our parents love, their righteousness be enough to deny justice it demands? I don't believe so, but there easily could be a principle, an eternal truth that hasn't been revealed which specifies otherwise.

As to my understanding of the gospel, Elder Bednar seems spot on.

[The Folk Prophet]

Yet, I would specify that God's love and a parent's love would have more efficacy in relation to their offspring than a neighbor's love...my personal thoughts.

Why though? I mean, usually, yes, this is the law of the harvest. You spend more time with your children than with your neighbor, so your righteousness will have more efficacy. But that doesn't HAVE to be true. What about, for example, a foster child. Would one's righteous example and teaching not have just as much efficacy on them if the time and love were equivalently shared? Or is there some magic that makes it matter more if they are actually sealed to you? I don't know the answer to these things. And, as JAG has implied in other posts, I don't see fairness in the idea that just because I was born under the Covenant, that someone else who wasn't doesn't have the same shot as me--eternally speaking.

[Anddenex]

Why though? I mean, usually, yes, this is the law of the harvest. You spend more time with your children than with your neighbor, so your righteousness will have more efficacy. But that doesn't HAVE to be true. What about, for example, a foster child. Would one's righteous example and teaching not have just as much efficacy on them if the time and love were equivalently shared? Or is there some magic that makes it matter more if they are actually sealed to you? I don't know the answer to these things. And, as JAG has implied in other posts, I don't see fairness in the idea that just because I was born under the Covenant, that someone else who wasn't doesn't have the same shot as me--eternally speaking.

I honestly don't know. The answer that first enters into my heart and mind is stewardship. My neighbor, although they love my children, are not stewards over my children.

Elijah mentions turning the hearts of the children to their fathers and vice-versa. Who better to plead the cause before the Almighty then a father or mother? The sealing is a connection of parents to offspring.

Again, I don't know, but this is what makes sense to me according to the knowledge I have at this time, which may change next year depending on what I learn in my studies. :)

[classylady]

I have this nebulous thought in my mind, which I haven't really had the time to ponder, but I have to wonder where "Royal Lineage" ties into all this? The sealing of children to parents, and being members of the church, (heirs of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), we have promised blessings given to us. But, when one looks at the blessings, it often is stewardship that comes into play. Such as, we don't bless ourselves (same as having the priesthood), but we are blessings in the lives of others by bringing the gospel to those who don't have it. Do we want to be members of this Royal Lineage? Yes, we do! Because the priesthood comes through this lineage and the temple blessings. But, is God a respecter of persons? No. All can become heirs. There is something in the sealing that blesses our children. I don't think we fully understand it. And, at the same time we are all held accountable for our transgressions. And all can partake in Christ's atonement. And somehow, I believe, this ties into the Royal Lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I need to think about this some more. Any thoughts?

[james12]

Very well; but I fail to see, theologically, why being the parent "after the flesh" of a child gives one a higher ability to save that child than God Himself has. I don't think God is so limited.

I don't see it as a competition. God works through us to help save his spirit children, and our physical children. Of course I don't know all the ways God works, but even Elder Bednar acknowledges that parents who honor covenants activate "tentacles of divine providence." For example, our ability to recognize and accept truth comes to us in large part from our parents, along with other blessings as Theodore M. Burton states:

One thing we often fail to realize is that our priesthood comes to us through the lineage of our fathers and mothers. The Lord explained it in these words: “Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers. …” (D&C 86:8.)

“Oh,” I can hear some of you say, “there must be something wrong with that statement, for I am the only member of my family who has joined the Church. How could I have received the priesthood from my parents?”

In this scripture the Lord was not talking about your priesthood line of authority. He was talking about your inherited right to receive and use priesthood power. This readiness to listen and believe is an inherited gift which enabled you to recognize and accept the truth. Jesus explained this thought as he said: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” (John 10:27.)

Is he? In Alma 40:11, Alma teaches Corianton that on death all spirits, whether good or evil, "are taken home to that God who gave them life". We know that this is a bit of prophetic hyperbole--the evil spirits still belong to God; but they are certainly not "home" in His presence at that point.

We do not know the exact context of what BY meant when he says, "return to the fountain from whence they sprung." But, I submit that neither you nor I would be satisfied with the promise given by BY if what he meant was that we could visit our wicked children when we wanted to.

But if we read Young's promise very carefully, it seems to be made to the parents, not to the children. From the parents' perspective--they do still have claim on the children, and can be with them at their desires.

Young isn't saying "hey, kids--make sure your parents live their covenants and you, too, can attain Celestial glory without any further commitment on your part!" He's saying "parents, if your kids are being snots--keep your covenants and know that they won't be eternally lost to you". There's a difference.

I agree on all counts. I am not saying that children are free to act evil and they can enter the Celestial kingdom. I am simply saying that at some point, perhaps not even in this life, the child will choose to repent and return and it will be due in no small part to the promises the parents obtained from the Lord.

The interpretation itself "dilutes the promise" because we--in fact, everyone alive today--are already descendants of people who made those covenants--Adam, Noah, Abraham, and so on. Why make the covenants again, if we're already "covered" by those made by our forefathers? And guaranteeing a place in the Celestial Kingdom to every descendant of Adam (even if you exclude the sons of perdition) seems to have its own dilusive qualities.

Even if you decide that, no, to be effective the parental sealing must be renewed at each generation: It would "make reason stare", to use Eliza Snow's phrase, to suggest that where two people have lived more-or-less equivalent lives and made more-or-less equivalent choices, the one will merit a place in the Celestial Kingdom while the other will merit only a Telestial glory, solely by virtue of the parents to whom they were born. As I understand it, Mormonism acknowledges and accepts inequalities in mortality as being commensurate with the justice of God, precisely because those inequalities won't be determinative of our final eternal state.

I much prefer the prospect of "dilution" (which, as near as I can tell, really boils down to the idea that I turn out to be not quite as special as I thought I was), to the apparent injustice of such a regimen.

As stated previously I do not believe that the child can act against the commandments of the Lord and be saved. However, Mormonisim also acknowledges that before this life some were more valiant in the pre-earth life than others. Might it be possible that these valiant children were given to valiant parents? Would this not satisfy both the promise and at the same time allow agency to work? Further, we have a very limited view of what happens after this life. I believe children of promise can a will change at some future time. Of course there is a possibility that at some future day they may deny the Holy Ghost and become sons of perdition but this door is always open.

[The Folk Prophet]

Hi, I know this post was to JAG, and I apologize to both of you for butting in on it, but I had some thoughts, so I'm throwing them out.

...parents who honor covenants activate "tentacles of divine providence."

Don't missionaries also activate tentacles of divine providence? Don't church leaders. Don't any who do good?

We do not know the exact context of what BY meant when he says, "return to the fountain from whence they sprung." But, I submit that neither you nor I would be satisfied with the promise given by BY if what he meant was that we could visit our wicked children when we wanted to.

I would be satisfied because it makes sense to justice.

I am simply saying that at some point, perhaps not even in this life, the child will choose to repent and return and it will be due in no small part to the promises the parents obtained from the Lord.

I would only contest one word above (bolded by me) and replace it with the word "may".

However, Mormonisim also acknowledges that before this life some were more valiant in the pre-earth life than others. Might it be possible that these valiant children were given to valiant parents? Would this not satisfy both the promise and at the same time allow agency to work?

It might be possible. But how do you address my earlier post to you concerning D&C 82:3? Would not being valiant in the pre-earth life AND being born to valiant parents make us more culpable, not less?

Further, we have a very limited view of what happens after this life.

But we do know that repentance must occur in this life. This is the time to prepare. Alma chapter 12 teaches us this fairly clearly. This life is the probationary state wherein we must prepare to meet God. "And whosoever will harden his heart and will do iniquity, behold, I swear in my wrath that he shall not enter into my rest." Keep in mind, these teachings in Alma 12 are by the same Alma who rebelled against his father and then repented after an angel appeared to him (the example mentioned by estradling75).

I believe children of promise can a will change at some future time. Of course there is a possibility that at some future day they may deny the Holy Ghost and become sons of perdition but this door is always open.

At some point we will all acknowledge the truth. But if it's too late, it's too late and merits us nothing.

[The Folk Prophet]

I have this nebulous thought in my mind, which I haven't really had the time to ponder, but I have to wonder where "Royal Lineage" ties into all this? The sealing of children to parents, and being members of the church, (heirs of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), we have promised blessings given to us. But, when one looks at the blessings, it often is stewardship that comes into play. Such as, we don't bless ourselves (same as having the priesthood), but we are blessings in the lives of others by bringing the gospel to those who don't have it. Do we want to be members of this Royal Lineage? Yes, we do! Because the priesthood comes through this lineage and the temple blessings. But, is God a respecter of persons? No. All can become heirs. There is something in the sealing that blesses our children. I don't think we fully understand it. And, at the same time we are all held accountable for our transgressions. And all can partake in Christ's atonement. And somehow, I believe, this ties into the Royal Lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I need to think about this some more. Any thoughts?

Some thoughts that may add to yours:

The covenant given to Abraham is the realization of our potential to gain all the Father has (as well as other promises that are/were specific to this life). Our royal lineage comes from the fact that we are children of a King -- The King of Kings. And is independent of Abraham, other than the fact that the Lord has specified the covenant made with Abraham to be the paradigm and family of our covenants. However, the same promises were made before Abraham and are freely offered to all the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. The Abrahamic covenant was the Lords means of codifying these promises, but the covenant is and was eternal, existing before Abraham, and is distinctly tied into Priesthood rights and the patriarchal order (both of which also existed before Abraham).

[james12]

Don't missionaries also activate tentacles of divine providence? Don't church leaders. Don't any who do good?

I would be satisfied because it makes sense to justice.

Then perhaps I should re-word Brigham Young's statement so that I'm not confused. I think this may capture it:

Let any person, who is a member of this Church and kingdom, take a righteous course, and strive with all their might never to do a wrong, but to do good all their lives; if they are good to any person, even to one or a hundred strangers, if they conduct themselves towards them as they should, through faith and prayers. I care not where these strangers go, they are bound up to the member of the church by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can stop this member from visiting the wicked stranger in eternity; for the wicked stranger will return again to the filthy fountain from whence he sprang.

What a special promise this is! Through my faith and prayers I can visit this wicked person any time I want! If I hadn't yearned for, and pleaded with the Lord for years I would not get to visit him in the Telestial kingdom, and how sad my life would have been. Now, while this is a joke, I do not find it very far from what you and others are telling me.

It might be possible. But how do you address my earlier post to you concerning D&C 82:3? Would not being valiant in the pre-earth life AND being born to valiant parents make us more culpable, not less?

But we do know that repentance must occur in this life. This is the time to prepare. Alma chapter 12 teaches us this fairly clearly. This life is the probationary state wherein we must prepare to meet God. "And whosoever will harden his heart and will do iniquity, behold, I swear in my wrath that he shall not enter into my rest." Keep in mind, these teachings in Alma 12 are by the same Alma who rebelled against his father and then repented after an angel appeared to him (the example mentioned by estradling75).

At some point we will all acknowledge the truth. But if it's too late, it's too late and merits us nothing.

I believe children will suffer for what they have done wrong. They may also enter another kingdom for their poor choices. And yes their additional light may make them more culpable. But you are describing to me one eternal round. What of the next, and the next? Elder Whitney says in this life or the next they will return and I believe at some point they will. Perhaps you don't hold to such a belief? We'll then we will simply disagree on this point. Maybe this is what the discussion boils down to.

[The Folk Prophet]

Then perhaps I should re-word Brigham Young's statement so that I'm not confused. I think this may capture it: What a special promise this is! Through my faith and prayers I can visit this wicked person any time I want! If I hadn't yearned for, and pleaded with the Lord for years I would not get to visit him in the Telestial kingdom, and how sad my life would have been. Now, while this is a joke, I do not find it very far from what you and others are telling me.

They are not simply wicked strangers. They are your brothers and your sisters. They are siblings and you have no idea how much you knew or loved them in the eons of time you had in the pre-existence.

Anyhow, read Alma 11 and 12 and tell my how you reconcile that with Elder Whitney's quote. I don't necessarily believe the visit them in lower kingdoms thing. It's only a thought. But what I do believe is that no matter how righteous a parent is and no the covenant and sealing, the rules are the rules and we are accountable for our own selves, not for our parents or our kids. Adam's transgressions are Adams. Cains were Cains. Simply put, by taking these quotes at their face value, Cain will return and be saved. The divine tentacles will reach out to him and he will return to the fountain from whence he sprang. Same with Laman and Lemuel. And yet we clearly learn from Lehi that they will be cast off for failure to repent. Their own righteous covenant keeping father tells them so. So does their brother.

The concepts are just not congruent.

I believe children will suffer for what they have done wrong. They may also enter another kingdom for their poor choices. And yes their additional light may make them more culpable. But you are describing to me one eternal round. What of the next, and the next? Elder Whitney says in this life or the next they will return and I believe at some point they will. Perhaps you don't hold to such a belief? We'll then we will simply disagree on this point. Maybe this is what the discussion boils down to.

I do believe they will return, but I believe what they will return to is a knowledge and an understanding of truth. They will stand before God with a perfect knowledge of who they are and all the mistakes they made. And they will confess that they were wrong and that Jesus is the Christ. That's my take on it. But if they do not turn from their wicked ways before the next life, it will be too late for them to gain their reward. Repentance after death is not an option. And that is scriptural and doctrinal.

Concerning their accountability, I have no comment. Therefore, we do not judge. We hope. Only God can judge. But if they are accountable, and if they have not repented, they will not be saved. God has spoken it -- despite what Elder Whitney seems to be saying.

Either Elder Whitney (and Brigham Young) were mistaken or they didn't mean it that way. That must be the case because the scriptures plainly teach us the truth of the matter. That is my belief.

[james12]

They are not simply wicked strangers. They are your brothers and your sisters. They are siblings and you have no idea how much you knew or loved them in the eons of time you had in the pre-existence.

Anyhow, read Alma 11 and 12 and tell my how you reconcile that with Elder Whitney's quote. I don't necessarily believe the visit them in lower kingdoms thing. It's only a thought. But what I do believe is that no matter how righteous a parent is and no the covenant and sealing, the rules are the rules and we are accountable for our own selves, not for our parents or our kids. Adam's transgressions are Adams. Cains were Cains. Simply put, by taking these quotes at their face value, Cain will return and be saved. The divine tentacles will reach out to him and he will return to the fountain from whence he sprang. Same with Laman and Lemuel. And yet we clearly learn from Lehi that they will be cast off for failure to repent. Their own righteous covenant keeping father tells them so. So does their brother.

The concepts are just not congruent.

Let me clarify one point here. Cain is a Son of Perdition, he will not be saved. He has broken the link and instead sealed himself to the devil. I believe the promises in these quotes we are discussing make an unstated exception for the Sons of Perdition.

[Just_A_Guy]

Then perhaps I should re-word Brigham Young's statement so that I'm not confused. I think this may capture it:

Let any person, who is a member of this Church and kingdom, take a righteous course, and strive with all their might never to do a wrong, but to do good all their lives; if they are good to any person, even to one or a hundred strangers, if they conduct themselves towards them as they should, through faith and prayers. I care not where these strangers go, they are bound up to the member of the church by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can stop this member from visiting the wicked stranger in eternity; for the wicked stranger will return again to the filthy fountain from whence he sprang.

What a special promise this is! Through my faith and prayers I can visit this wicked person any time I want! If I hadn't yearned for, and pleaded with the Lord for years I would not get to visit him in the Telestial kingdom, and how sad my life would have been. Now, while this is a joke, I do not find it very far from what you and others are telling me.

I think the above cheapens the qualitative relationships that bind savior and saved. What did you think of the analogy I drew in the final paragraph of this post?

A couple of observations re your modified Young quote:

1. Conceptually, yeah; part of the parent-child bond is a ramped-up version of the convert/missionary relationship (see, e.g., Alma 27:4, and ponder the implications and underlying sentiments of such a relationship). I think the parent-child sealing fortifies and reinforces the kinds of relationships that will exist--on a much lesser plane--even outside of the traditional parent-child relationship.

2. You omit a key part of Young's quote: the faith and prayers of the parents bind the child to the Lord. Are you suggesting that someone in the Telestial Kingdom no longer belongs to, or is bound to, the Lord? If not, and you agree that they do still belong to the Lord, then why can they not also belong to their parents, and acknowledge their parents' role in their own redemption from the second death just as they acknowledge the Lord's? Does the turning of the hearts of the children to the fathers mean nothing in the eternities?

3. No one who can be called "saved", even in the broadest definition of the word, is "filthy". They have all been cleansed by the redeeming blood of Christ; else they would have been subject to the second death. That doesn't mean that they are all at the same level of development, or that they will all receive the same reward. But they are not filthy; and even in the Telestial Kingdom they enjoy a reward that is utterly incomprehensible to us.

4. If I am exalted, and I am to "be with" my exalted children and my exalted parents simultaneously with the new "spirit children" I'll be generating as an exalted being (as well as the additional "spirit children" generated by my own parents and children)--doesn't that make the Celestial Kingdom an awfully crowded place? And doesn't it stand to reason that in our own premortal lives we, too, associated not only with our Father, but with His Father, and Grandfather, and so on; as well as the spirit creations of each of them? Is this really the paradigm we have of the heavens?

5. We don't understand how space or time will operate in the eternities. We don't even know for sure whether the Terrestrial/Telestial kingdoms are specific physical places. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: I think we're spectacularly jumping the gun to start making pronouncements about who will be "with" whom once the dust has cleared and the Final Judgment is done; and I think that's only an incidental issue to what the patrilineal temple sealing really does.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Lakumi]

Then perhaps I should re-word Brigham Young's statement so that I'm not confused. I think this may capture it: What a special promise this is! Through my faith and prayers I can visit this wicked person any time I want! If I hadn't yearned for, and pleaded with the Lord for years I would not get to visit him in the Telestial kingdom, and how sad my life would have been. Now, while this is a joke, I do not find it very far from what you and others are telling me.

I don't want visits in my forest realm on the other side:lol:

Even in the lowest one I am sure there are woods, woods I can inhabit without fear of bears

[classylady]

They are not simply wicked strangers. They are your brothers and your sisters. They are siblings and you have no idea how much you knew or loved them in the eons of time you had in the pre-existence.

Anyhow, read Alma 11 and 12 and tell my how you reconcile that with Elder Whitney's quote. I don't necessarily believe the visit them in lower kingdoms thing. It's only a thought. But what I do believe is that no matter how righteous a parent is and no the covenant and sealing, the rules are the rules and we are accountable for our own selves, not for our parents or our kids. Adam's transgressions are Adams. Cains were Cains. Simply put, by taking these quotes at their face value, Cain will return and be saved. The divine tentacles will reach out to him and he will return to the fountain from whence he sprang. Same with Laman and Lemuel. And yet we clearly learn from Lehi that they will be cast off for failure to repent. Their own righteous covenant keeping father tells them so. So does their brother.

The concepts are just not congruent.

I do believe they will return, but I believe what they will return to is a knowledge and an understanding of truth. They will stand before God with a perfect knowledge of who they are and all the mistakes they made. And they will confess that they were wrong and that Jesus is the Christ. That's my take on it. But if they do not turn from their wicked ways before the next life, it will be too late for them to gain their reward. Repentance after death is not an option. And that is scriptural and doctrinal.

Concerning their accountability, I have no comment. Therefore, we do not judge. We hope. Only God can judge. But if they are accountable, and if they have not repented, they will not be saved. God has spoken it -- despite what Elder Whitney seems to be saying.

Either Elder Whitney (and Brigham Young) were mistaken or they didn't mean it that way. That must be the case because the scriptures plainly teach us the truth of the matter. That is my belief.

 

 

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread.  But, I remember reading this several months back and I had several questions come to mind after reading your comment about no repentance after death, and it's been gnawing at me. I know of the scriptural accounts that tell us to repent in this life. I don't question that. I do believe that we should repent in this life. But, I also know that none of us (those of us who are accountable) at the time of death will be absolutely guiltless and without sin. Perhaps, we were angry at a spouse the day we died, or angry at our children, perhaps we broke a speeding law, perhaps we took a paper clip home from the office, perhaps we shouted out an unkind word to a careless motorist, etc. There will be things that we did that we won't have the chance to repent of. And we all know that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. If there is no repentance after death, then are we all doomed? It would seem like it. But, I believe in a merciful God who will allow us the chance to repent after this life.

 

I did a little research because of this question. I found this wonderful talk called Repentance and Conversion by Russell M. Nelson April 2007. Here are several paragraphs that I love:

 

"Each living person can repent. But what about those who have died? They also have opportunities to repent. Scripture declares that “the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance … among those who are … under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead.

“The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God,

“And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, [they] shall receive a reward according to their works.” ⁴⁶

The Prophet Joseph Smith further revealed that “the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children. … We without [our dead] cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. … [This] dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place.” ⁴⁷

What stands out to me is that after repentance, those who have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, they shall receive a reward according to their works. I think we often overlook "works". This includes all of us who are trying to do the best we can, and repent of our sins.  Still, our works may be what condemns us. What are some of the works that are going to condemn us? Are we kind? Are we charitable? Are we patient? Are we givers rather than takers? Do we try to make the world a better place? Or are we impatient, uncharitable, unkind, etc. Lots of questions come up. Because if we are repentant, do not sinful actions get washed away? Need to do more pondering on that.

 

I believe God is merciful and just. For example, take a hypothetical young dating couple who break the LoC. The very next day one of them is killed in a car accident before having the chance to confess to the Bishop. Both of them were sorrowful and repentant. Both of them intended to confess their sins and sin no more. But, because one of them died before having the chance to take all the necessary steps of repentance, is that particular person not going to have a chance to be in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom? The other that lived did repent and took all necessary steps of repentance, and lived a life thereafter in gratitude for the Savior and His atonement. The other that had died would have done the same. I believe that God knows our heart and He will be just.

 

But this I also know:  "Some people assume, however, that because they may be able to repent after death, all the blessings of the gospel will be received. But when we depart from this sphere of existence, we will find that we are still the same individuals that we were upon this earth. Death does not change one’s attitudes or create in him a desire to repent, because “that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.” (Alma 34:34.)" 

• Roy W. Doxey
• March 1977 Ensign I Have a Question

 

We know the welding link of the Sealing Covenant is absolutely critical to God's plan. We don't exactly know what the "divine tentacles" are when it comes to children that have strayed who belong under the Sealing Covenant. I believe it is important and has merit. It is something to think and ponder about. It gives parents hope. But, at the same time, we cannot discount individual worthiness. And, at the same time we cannot forget there is repentance and forgiveness.

[The Folk Prophet]

For your consideration:

 

2 Nephi 9:38 

And, in fine, wo unto all those who die in their sins; for they shall return to God, and behold his face, and remain in their sins.

 

Moroni 10:26 

And wo unto them who shall do these things away and die, for they die in their sins, and they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God; and I speak it according to the words of Christ; and I lie not.

 

Mosiah 15:26

But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection.

[classylady]

I am very much aware of those scriptures. And I take them to heart. But, I also believe what Russell M. Nelson, a current apostle, says: "Each living person can repent. But what about those who have died? They also have opportunities to repent."

I'm sure that Elder Nelson is aware of the scriptures you quoted just as much as you or I. And, I'm sure he has a better understanding of them than you or I. 

 

And I believe:

D&C !38 :30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

 31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

 32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.

 33 These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands,…" 

 

Here is a quote from Wilford Woodruff about modern day revelation:

 

 

"I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.” When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the written oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day.” “And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the [p.23]writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.”  (Conference Report, October 1897, p.22)

 

To me, if I believe Russell M. Nelson and the D&C, it sounds like there is repentance after death. There are other quotes about repentance after death that is also on LDS.org.

 

It doesn't make sense to me if there wasn't. Let's say, for example, you just find out you were laid off from your job. You go home and prepare to tell your spouse. Your spouse comes home and brings in numerous bags of groceries that were just purchased. You're wondering how can we afford this now? And you unrighteously yell at your spouse and say some hurtful things. Suddenly, you have a heart attack and die instantly. You would be dying in your sins if that was the case. There would be no hope. Would all your repentance up to that instant be pointless? For God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. We know we need to endure to the end. We know we need to repent. We know all this, but at the same time, none of us are perfect. Except for Christ, I don't know of anyone who has died that was perfect. There must be a way given for all of us to progress beyond the veil, and to repent. Now, saying all that, it does not take away the fact that we will be judged according to our "works" here on earth, and when we die we will have the same attitudes as we had here on the earth.

[The Folk Prophet]

 32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.

 

This is clearly what Elder Nelson and others are speaking of when they speak of repentance after death. Those who did not have the opportunity to repent in this life will have that opportunity. There is not conflict between these teachings. There is repentance after death, but it is conditional per their knowledge of the truth.

 

As for your dying while yelling at your spouse thing...that's between God and the man yelling. Clearly the criteria for exaltation is not perfection though. I expect the Atonement has room for those who are good, working to be good, striving in service, obedience, and righteousness, etc., but make mistakes, as we all do. Only God can judge.

 

I think there's a big difference between making mistakes and simply not bothering to repent because you can do it later. There's also a HUGE difference between slipping up with a bit of frustration at your spouse and "slipping up" (yeah, right) and sleeping with someone and then dying before repentance.

[classylady]

This is clearly what Elder Nelson and others are speaking of when they speak of repentance after death. Those who did not have the opportunity to repent in this life will have that opportunity. There is not conflict between these teachings. There is repentance after death, but it is conditional per their knowledge of the truth.

 

 

 32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.

 

You didn't bold the part "or in transgression, having rejected the prophets." How can that be ignored?

 

Thank you, for clarifying what you meant.  In your earlier posts you had made it sound like there was absolutely no repentance after death. And I wanted to make sure that our non-lds friends or those who were researching our church knew that there is repentance after death.  Just what that entails exactly for us, I'm not totally sure, but I do know that God is merciful and He is just.