Wayward Children article in Mar Ensign

[The Folk Prophet]

There's an article in the latest Ensign by Elder Bednar called Faithful Parents and Wayward Children: Sustaining Hope While Overcoming Misunderstanding

In it Elder Bednar clarifies the oft repeated idea, based on the quotes by Joseph Smith and Orson F. Whitney, that the covenants of righteous parents will save their children too.

I have often struggled with this concept because it seems so contradictory to agency. Elder Bednar sets the record straight here, but does so without simply discrediting the idea entirely. He clarifies what our understanding should be. He specifies that covenant keeping can and does affect wayward children. However, he also makes clear that agency is not taken, obedience and repentance are still required by choice, and that "salvation" does not necessarily mean "exaltation".

This is a sensitive subject for those with struggling children, and so I have often avoided direct discussion of it because my manner is frank and callous enough that I'm as likely as not to offend. Elder Bednar, I believe, handles it frankly, but with enough care to help parents retain hope without embracing false ideas.

Anyhow, it is a nice clarification. This is one of those ideas that I think fits into the category of perpetuated pseudo-doctrine long misunderstood by many.

[applepansy]

Robert Millet has a great book on this subject. It was very helpful to me when our oldest son started being rebellious.

[Palerider]

I know how it feels to have a wayward child. Our first born fell away after high school and ended up being excommunicated soon afterward. We to were devasted as parents. We had a great Stake President who helped us thru this difficult time. Due to her almost being kicked out of the Nursing program for flunking tests, this woke her up. She approached us about moving back home and expressing a strong desire to get her life back in order and asked her Mom to help her study for her tests. She was rebaptised later and married in the Temple.

[james12]

I'm not sure what I think about this article. In essence he is diluting the statement by Elder Whitney who said in part, "The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught more comforting doctrine—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." He takes this statement to mean that faithful parents who are sealed up unto eternal life have the opportunity to help their children in this life and the next, but they have no promise that their children will be saved. Moreover, he further differentiates by saying they may be saved but not exalted.

Am I missing something? So now if one is sealed up unto eternal life it simply gives you the opportunity to help save your children? Obedience to the covenant does not secure your children to you? Apparently the doctrine taught by Joseph wasn't all that comforting.

I'm going to have to think about this some more...

[dahlia]

I read the article with interest. On one hand, it doesn't really apply to me since my son isn't wayward - he's not LDS and hasn't strayed from the Church.

On the other hand, having a child who in many, many ways agrees with the Church's teachings, and yet doesn't want to join, is also difficult. He's a good guy, so it doesn't ring true if I tell him he should join because his life would be better (it would be, but not necessarily in ways that are important to him now) if he joined. Selfishly, I would like to have grandchildren who are raised in the Church. That's gonna be hard to do if their father won't join. : ) I continue to pray and give him readings about the Church's views on such things as marriage, in the hopes that he will one day see the light. I don't think there is much else I can do.

[Palerider]

I read the article with interest. On one hand, it doesn't really apply to me since my son isn't wayward - he's not LDS and hasn't strayed from the Church.

On the other hand, having a child who in many, many ways agrees with the Church's teachings, and yet doesn't want to join, is also difficult. He's a good guy, so it doesn't ring true if I tell him he should join because his life would be better (it would be, but not necessarily in ways that are important to him now) if he joined. Selfishly, I would like to have grandchildren who are raised in the Church. That's gonna be hard to do if their father won't join. : ) I continue to pray and give him readings about the Church's views on such things as marriage, in the hopes that he will one day see the light. I don't think there is much else I can do.

All you can do is keep praying his heart will soften and that one day he might have a desire to know more.

[Just_A_Guy]

Moreover, he further differentiates by saying they may be saved but not exalted.

Technically I don't think Elder Whitney said they'd be exalted, either. It's how lots of longing parents have chosen to read him; but (AFAIK) it's not what he actually said.

Am I missing something? So now if one is sealed up unto eternal life it simply gives you the opportunity to help save your children? Obedience to the covenant does not secure your children to you? Apparently the doctrine taught by Joseph wasn't all that comforting.

Sure it was! Whitney promises that at some point, whether in mortality or later, "the tentacles of divine providence feel after them" or something to that effect. And so they do--in point of fact--to everyone who is redeemed from the second death, regardless of what degree of glory they ultimately inherit. But faithful parents are given the comfort of knowing that it is the seeds that THEY, specifically, have sown; that will bear the fruit of repentance in the child and lead to that child's salvation. It's like doing temple work for ancestors--yeah, it may have happened for them without your input; but the fact that you personally did the leg-work bolsters your relationship with them in the hereafter.

The idea of temple sealings guaranteeing the exaltation of a wayward child is kind of odd, when you think about it. How is it possible that I can guarantee for all of my children, something that God can't even guarantee for all of His? Wouldn't that come down to the assumption that I am capable of being a more faithful parent than God Himself is?

Edited March 10, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

For the record I believe that come the final judgment day everyone that desires to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom will be so rewarded. It is my belief that this life and the spirit world is the means by which our desires are fixed and determined. I just do not see anyone being forced anywhere. Rather is seem proper to me that everyone will be quite glad and pleased with the outcome.

It seems to me that the reason we hope for someone not currently directed in the path of righteousness is because they have not quite understood something and that when that something awakens within them – like the prodigal son, they will return. I see no reason to think, hope or believe otherwise. It is quite possible that the righteousness of parents will indeed play a most important role in the prodigal coming to their senses. Thus as parents I do not see reason not to pray for possibilities or in any way abandon our efforts in behalf of any prodigal – blood kin or not.

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

For the record I believe that come the final judgment day everyone that desires to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom will be so rewarded. It is my belief that this life and the spirit world is the means by which our desires are fixed and determined. I just do not see anyone being forced anywhere. Rather is seem proper to me that everyone will be quite glad and pleased with the outcome.

Helaman 12:20-26

[The Folk Prophet]

Oh...and Alma 12:13-17

[james12]

Technically I don't think Elder Whitney said they'd be exalted, either. It's how lots of longing parents have chosen to read him; but (AFAIK) it's not what he actually said.

It may be as you say but this distinction is more of a modern one. When Elder Whitney says "saved" I'm not sure he is separating it from exaltation. Here is what Elder McConkie said:

We are ofttimes prone to create artificial distinctions, to say that salvation means one thing and exaltation another, to suppose that salvation means to be resurrected, but that exaltation or eternal life is something in addition thereto. When [prophets] speak and write about salvation, almost without exception, they mean eternal life or exaltation. They use the terms salvation, exaltation, and eternal life as synonyms, as words that mean exactly the same thing without any difference, distinction, or variance whatever. (The Promised Messiah: The First Coming of Christ, 129)

Sure it was! Whitney promises that at some point, whether in mortality or later, "the tentacles of divine providence feel after them" or something to that effect. And so they do--in point of fact--to everyone who is redeemed from the second death, regardless of what degree of glory they ultimately inherit. But faithful parents are given the comfort of knowing that it is the seeds that THEY, specifically, have sown; that will bear the fruit of repentance in the child and lead to that child's salvation. It's like doing temple work for ancestors--yeah, it may have happened for them without your input; but the fact that you personally did the leg-work bolsters your relationship with them in the hereafter.

The idea of temple sealings guaranteeing the exaltation of a wayward child is kind of odd, when you think about it. How is it possible that I can guarantee for all of my children, something that God can't even guarantee for all of His? Wouldn't that come down to the assumption that I am capable of being a more faithful parent than God Himself is?

Christ is God's only child begotten in the flesh, and Christ is the very prototype of a saved being. So I reject the notion that God cannot save those whom he has begotten in the flesh. The problem is that we cannot save those born to us. I'm not ready to lay limits on who God can and cannot save. And in the end, it is not our effort that saves wayward children, but His.

[The Folk Prophet]

It may be as you say but this distinction is more of a modern one. When Elder Whitney says "saved" I'm not sure he is separating it from exaltation. Here is what Elder McConkie said:

I agree with you. Which is why my take on it is that Orson F. Whitney was simply mistaken in that quote. But I also acknowledge that I could be wrong.

Christ is God's only child begotten in the flesh, and Christ is the very prototype of a saved being. So I reject the notion that God cannot save those whom he has begotten in the flesh. The problem is that we cannot save those born to us. I'm not ready to lay limits on who God can and cannot save. And in the end, it is not our effort that saves wayward children, but His.

Even God cannot save us in our sins. For He has proclaimed it so.

Alma 11:34

And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word.

And :37

And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.

[james12]

I agree with you. Which is why my take on it is that Orson F. Whitney was simply mistaken in that quote. But I also acknowledge that I could be wrong.

Even God cannot save us in our sins. For He has proclaimed it so.

Alma 11:34

And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word.

And :37

And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.

Quite right. The promises of the Lord do not over rule the gospel fundamentals of repentance and free agency. Elder Bednar makes this point and I do agree. Rather, the promises of the Lord fit within the gospel framework. I believe there is room for both the exercise of agency and the fulfillment of the Lord's promises. This is because we know so little about our life before this earth, how the Lord may bless our children, and so little after it. That is why I am hesitant to discount Elder Whitney's statement, or ones like this from Brigham Young:

Let the father and mother, who are members 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 have one child or one hundred children, if they conduct themselves towards them as they should, binding them to the Lord by their faith and prayers. I care not where those children go, they are bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can separate them from their parents in eternity; they will return again to the fountain from whence they sprang. (Journal of Discourses, 11:215)

[Traveler]

I really do not understand why some are interpreting scriptures the way they are. First I would like to ask the question - who is it that has not sinned and that will not have to beg and plead for mercy at that great day of judgement?

As I have stated and I honestly believe that anyone that comes to their senses and pleads before G-d for mercy will not be cast off - despite what ever sins they may have committed or for how long. As I understand - there are likely those - that for what ever reason will be proud and will not beg for mercy. Perhaps in their pride they will think that they are righteous and need no mercy. Whatever!!! But I believe that those that regret their sins and plead in their very core - that are brought to humility because of the realization of their sins - their sins will be forgiven and their burden lifted at that great day. Anyone else that is, for whatever reason not sorry for what they have done - will be glad to remain as they are in their sins.

My recommendation is to put off our pride - to start now begging before G-d that our sins be forgiven. My experience is that the sooner we start and the more practice we have at it; the easier it will be and the less painful it will be to come before G-d at that great day of judgement and beg G-d for mercy and forgiveness.

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

I really do not understand why some are interpreting scriptures the way they are. First I would like to ask the question - who is it that has not sinned and that will not have to beg and plead for mercy at that great day of judgement?

Hmm. Well, let's see. You said, "Rather is seem proper to me that everyone will be quite glad and pleased with the outcome."

So I posted scriptures with the following points:

Yea, who shall be consigned to a state of endless misery

...and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to chide us from his presence.

...and acknowledge to our everlasting shame that all his judgments are just; that he is just in all his works

...my intention being to refute the idea that everyone will be quite glad and pleased with the outcome. And you honestly cannot understand why some would interpret these scriptures to mean that? I think they mean what they say? It's not like the Book of Mormon is, for the most part, hard to understand or requires a whole lot of "interpreting".

As I have stated and I honestly believe that anyone that comes to their senses and pleads before G-d for mercy will not be cast off - despite what ever sins they may have committed or for how long. As I understand - there are likely those - that for what ever reason will be proud and will not beg for mercy. Perhaps in their pride they will think that they are righteous and need no mercy. Whatever!!! But I believe that those that regret their sins and plead in their very core - that are brought to humility because of the realization of their sins - their sins will be forgiven and their burden lifted at that great day. Anyone else that is, for whatever reason not sorry for what they have done - will be glad to remain as they are in their sins.

Can you back up this belief with scriptures? Because I honestly believe that we will acknowledge His judgments are just to our everlasting shame if we have not brought forth fruit meet for repentance. And I can back it up with scripture. We will all come to our senses. But this life it the time set apart as a probationary state, and repentance in this life is requisite for mercy. (Repentance only being necessary for those who have been given knowledge of truth and are thereby accountable). And repentance can not "come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul." (Alma 42:16) All of this is plainly taught in the Book of Mormon...no interpreting necessary.

My recommendation is to put off our pride - to start now begging before G-d that our sins be forgiven.

This is good advice.

[Traveler]

Hmm. Well, let's see. You said, "Rather is seem proper to me that everyone will be quite glad and pleased with the outcome."

So I posted scriptures with the following points:

...my intention being to refute the idea that everyone will be quite glad and pleased with the outcome. And you honestly cannot understand why some would interpret these scriptures to mean that? I think they mean what they say? It's not like the Book of Mormon is, for the most part, hard to understand or requires a whole lot of "interpreting".

Can you back up this belief with scriptures? Because I honestly believe that we will acknowledge His judgments are just to our everlasting shame if we have not brought forth fruit meet for repentance. And I can back it up with scripture. We will all come to our senses. But this life it the time set apart as a probationary state, and repentance in this life is requisite for mercy. (Repentance only being necessary for those who have been given knowledge of truth and are thereby accountable). And repentance can not "come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul." (Alma 42:16) All of this is plainly taught in the Book of Mormon...no interpreting necessary.

This is good advice.

Though it may seem a contradiction - It appears to me that even Satan thought in a state of constant misery is very glad to remain in that state rather that beg to G-d for mercy. Those that are cast off - seem glad to be so - rather than beg for mercy. Their preference and choice is to be cast off.

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

Though it may seem a contradiction - It appears to me that even Satan thought in a state of constant misery is very glad to remain in that state rather that beg to G-d for mercy. Those that are cast off - seem glad to be so - rather than beg for mercy. Their preference and choice is to be cast off.

The Traveler

I understand what you are saying here. I think this turns it into a semantic argument though. You are, essentially, changing the meaning of "glad". Literally it doesn't "seem" a contradiction. It is a contradiction.

But, yes, I can see what you're saying. Like a surly teenager being "happy" to be "sad". Sure. I get it. If you define "glad" as "intentionally choosing by preference" then yes, you are right.

Regardless, where I disagree, and I think the scriptures clearly support, is that we will be able to change our minds at judgment day, as the clarity of what we have chosen hits home, and that by begging for mercy we will be given that which we did not choose in life. I do not believe that at that moment that any will be "glad" they are being given less than the reward they could have have had if they had chosen to be faithful instead, regardless of which of the above definitions of "glad" one goes with. At that day, if we have chosen anything less than to return to our Father in Heaven, receiving our full inheritance, I do not buy for a second that we will be saying, "It's okay, this is what I prefer anyhow." Although we will admit that His judgments are just and that we are getting what we deserve. But if we have not chosen salvation according to the words of God, we will regret this.

Your suggestions in this regard rings too close to "eat, drink, and be merry" in my opinion. "...and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be..." happy in whatever kingdom of salvation we are in--and we wouldn't have been happy in the Celestial Kingdom anyway. We'll be glad to be damned, so it doesn't really matter.

[The Folk Prophet]

Quite right. The promises of the Lord do not over rule the gospel fundamentals of repentance and free agency. Elder Bednar makes this point and I do agree. Rather, the promises of the Lord fit within the gospel framework. I believe there is room for both the exercise of agency and the fulfillment of the Lord's promises. This is because we know so little about our life before this earth, how the Lord may bless our children, and so little after it. That is why I am hesitant to discount Elder Whitney's statement, or ones like this from Brigham Young:

I do not think, in any sense, that Elder Bednar was discounting these statements.

One thing I liked that Elder Bednar pointed out in the article is that we do have the advantage of continuing revelation and clarification. Consequently, I have no problem with the idea that whereas there very likely were great truths being expressed by Orson Whitney and Brigham Young in these statements, there is also a possibility that the full understanding of it was not yet there, and therefore some of the ways they are saying things may be mistaken. If, for example, as already mentioned, Orson Whitney meant exaltation when he said salvation, then it is at odds with other revealed truths (not to mention the clarifying teachings of Elder Bednar). Brigham Young's statement, likewise, is also at odds with other known truths. Similar to our understanding of comments made by Brigham like unto the Adam-God doctrine, I feel confident in responding to these sorts of things by simply saying that we don't know what he meant, but we have living prophets and apostles to clarify truth, and we can safely follow and believe their guidance.

[Just_A_Guy]

It may be as you say but this distinction is more of a modern one. When Elder Whitney says "saved" I'm not sure he is separating it from exaltation. Here is what Elder McConkie said:

McConkie himself acknowledges various uses of the term "Salvation", though. In Mormon Doctrine he gives three usages:

--"Unconditional or general salvation", which he defines as resurrection and attained by all but the sons of perdition;

--"Conditional or individual salvation", which he defines as "receiving an inheritance in the celestial Kingdom of God";

--As a synonym with "Exaltation" or "eternal life"--"gaining an inheritance in the highest of the three heavens within the celestial kingdom. With few exceptions this is the salvation of which the scriptures speak."

His quote in The Promised Messiah tracks the third usage. It doesn't rule out the others.

Christ is God's only child begotten in the flesh, and Christ is the very prototype of a saved being. So I reject the notion that God cannot save those whom he has begotten in the flesh. The problem is that we cannot save those born to us. I'm not ready to lay limits on who God can and cannot save. And in the end, it is not our effort that saves wayward children, but His.

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.

[Cites the following:]

Let the father and mother, who are members 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 have one child or one hundred children, if they conduct themselves towards them as they should, binding them to the Lord by their faith and prayers. I care not where those children go, they are bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can separate them from their parents in eternity; they will return again to the fountain from whence they sprang. (Journal of Discourses, 11:215)

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.

Threadjack:

What is the theological basis for the notion that people in different kingdoms will be physically separated/unable to have contact? I can think of three:

1) The parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where there is a gulf between the former (who is in hell/spirit prison) and the latter (who is in paradise);

2) The idea that the celestialized earth becomes a home/dwelling place for those who have abided a celestial law.

3) Reading D&C 76:77 in such a way that "fulness of the Father" is interpreted as His presence (in any form).

What else am I missing?

Edited March 10, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Threadjack:

What is the theological basis for the notion that people in different kingdoms will be physically separated/unable to have contact? I can think of three:

1) The parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where there is a gulf between the former (who is in hell/spirit prison) and the latter (who is in paradise);

2) The idea that the celestialized earth becomes a home/dwelling place for those who have abided a celestial law.

3) Reading D&C 76:77 in such a way that "fulness of the Father" is interpreted as His presence (in any form).

What else am I missing?

Well, the very concept of eternal sealings and being together forever, forever families, etc., automatically implies the opposite if one is not sealed or does not live up to the sealing covenant. So there is the natural inference from that where I believe the strongest viewpoint can be and is drawn from. If we can be together without sealing, then why are we sealed?

Related, and along the same lines, the core concept (I'm sure this could be scripturally validated) of salvation is to live forever with the Father. So, once again, applying in reverse, then not being saved must needs mean NOT being with the Father.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, the very concept of eternal sealings and being together forever, forever families, etc., automatically implies the opposite if one is not sealed or does not live up to the sealing covenant.

Sure; but where do we get this notion that the sealing involves "being together forever"? What does a "forever family" really mean?

If we can be together without sealing, then why are we sealed?

Why, indeed.

Related, and along the same lines, the core concept (I'm sure this could be scripturally validated) of salvation is to live forever with the Father.

Then is Jesus not Savior to those who attain only a terrestrial or telestial glory?

(I hope I'm not coming off as a jerk. I'm not trying to pick you apart--just trying to explore where these ideas lead.)

[The Folk Prophet]

Sure; but where do we get this notion that the sealing involves "being together forever"? What does a "forever family" really mean?

Didn't you ever watch Seminary videos?

Of course I understand that what you're asking is where does the idea come from scriptural (or even prophetic/apostolic) quotes. The obvious answer is D&C 132, but it is not explicit therein, nor does it speak of the eternal relationship of the earthly father to son dynamic.

Of course, there is also the hymn. Families can be together forever...

Short of that, it's fairly easy to search lds.org for the term forever families and get a myriad of information on it. Clearly it is doctrinal, regardless of the origin of thought behind it.

Why, indeed.

Which also leads to -- why establish the doctrine of the importance of forever families/together forever if the reverse is not true?

Then is Jesus not Savior to those who attain only a terrestrial or telestial glory?

See your own comment on the 3 forms of Salvation.

(I hope I'm not coming off as a jerk. I'm not trying to pick you apart--just trying to explore where these ideas lead.)

I have yet to experience discussion with you wherein I felt you were coming off as a jerk. In this specific case I think your question brings up an interesting thought that behooves further research. Where does this idea come from?

I've had some other similar/related conversations regarding the meaning of sealing. I would dare bet that the answer to this query can be found in research as to the what sealing actually means.

That being said, I have never had a problem with the sealing of husband and wife to be together forever, as it follows that a man and a woman are required for procreation. Hence, no eternal sealing, no eternal seed.

By why do we have to be sealed to our children/parents? I mean, is it really only about visitation rights?

Also, why do we have to be sealed from Adam down as one large Celestial Family. What is the real reason for that?

[The Folk Prophet]

Sure; but where do we get this notion that the sealing involves "being together forever"? What does a "forever family" really mean?

I've researched it a bit, and pondered it some more, and I have concluded that I have no idea. I'm honestly stumped.

[Just_A_Guy]

I have some random scattered thoughts on this, but need to run up to Ogden to visit a client at the moment. But generally speaking, I've come to approach the parent-child sealing through an inheritance/royal lineage paradigm, not a physical proximity paradigm. I suppose the former could sort of have implications for the latter; but I remember in my early teens being on a scout campout one night and talking to my bishop across a campfire; and he asked me some very probing Gospel questions along this line:

JAG, your family is sealed, right?

--Right

And you think you're going to be together forever, right?

--Right

But isn't your brother on a mission right now?

--Yeah

So why isn't your family together right now, if the sealing means you're together forever?

--Uhhh . . .

He went on to explain his view that the only person you're constantly physically together with through all eternity with, is your spouse. That, he claimed, was your "eternal family". Your parents (as he explained it) are off in their mansion over here, your kids off in their mansions out there, your brother and sisters are in their respective mansions hither and yon. Whatever your sealing means for your relationship with your parents, kids, and/or siblings--it does not, he suggested, guarantee physical proximity.

I'm certainly not saying that one ward bishop is an authoritative source of doctrine in an internet discussion. But the concepts that came up in that conversation rang, and still ring, true to me; and they have influenced my approach to the issue ever since.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

I have some random scattered thoughts on this, but need to run up to Ogden to visit a client at the moment. But generally speaking, I've come to approach the parent-child sealing through an inheritance/royal lineage paradigm, not a physical proximity paradigm. I suppose the former could sort of have implications for the latter; but I remember in my early teens being on a scout campout one night and talking to my bishop across a campfire; and he asked me some very probing Gospel questions along this line:

JAG, your family is sealed, right?

--Right

And you think you're going to be together forever, right?

--Right

But isn't your brother on a mission right now?

--Yeah

So why isn't your family together right now, if the sealing means you're together forever?

--Uhhh . . .

He went on to explain his view that the only person you're constantly physically together with through all eternity with, is your spouse. That, he claimed, was your "eternal family". Your parents (as he explained it) are off in their mansion over here, your kids off in their mansions out there, your brother and sisters are in their respective mansions hither and yon. Whatever your sealing means for your relationship with your parents, kids, and/or siblings--it does not, he suggested, guarantee physical proximity.

I'm certainly not saying that one ward bishop is an authoritative source of doctrine in an internet discussion. But the concepts that came up in that conversation rang, and still ring, true to me; and they have influenced my approach to the issue ever since.

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. :)

Edited March 10, 2014 by church