What does it mean as far as blessings are concerned for children to be sealed to parents? Why is it important? I know a Sister that is getting her sealing canceled to a former husband. She is then getting sealed to her current husband. She asked her bishop about her children she had with her former husband, and he said they will get their blessings from the original sealing to the father and mother, and they will retain those blessings. Somebody else then asked what would happen to the children in the hereafter.
That question got me to thinking on what we actual believe about the parent to children sealings. It is not like kids are going to live with their parents in heaven if they are sealed, and not live with them if they are not sealed. We will be living with our spouse, and our kids will be living with their spouses. The Church Handbook says that being born in the covenant “entitles children to eternal parentage”, and being sealed to a parent gives the children “the same right to blessings as if they had been born in the covenant.”
And what about vicarious sealings. We find a long dead relative, and have them sealed to their spouse in the temple. But then we seal the children to the parents. What good does that do, and what happens if they are not sealed? They are dead, so there are no earthly blessings they are going to get. Furthermore, as long as each is sealed to a spouse, with all the other temple ordinances, they have everything needed for exaltation.
What have you been taught about parent-child sealings? What specific blessings does a child and/or parent receive with this sealing? Are these blessing for this earth only, or do they extend in the eternities? What will they miss if they are not sealed, but otherwise receive all the saving ordinances?
Wheat & Tares 
In all honesty this topic brings out the cynic in me. Despite both of my parents being LDS they were never sealed. My dad has been inactive most of his adult life and they divorced when I was nine. This topic was often on my mind. And I found the answers for me always lacking. It always came down to the non-descriptive answer of ‘God will work it out’.
What have you been taught about parent-child sealings?
Very little. Except that it was to keep families together forever.
What specific blessings does a child and/or parent receive with this sealing?
I always understood that, just like in couple sealngs, it would prevent you from being cut off from your loved ones after death.
Are these blessing for this earth only, or do they extend in the eternities?
My understanding is that it’s more about the afterlife. I don’t know that it has any specific temporal blessings attached (besides Mormon street cred).
What will they miss if they are not sealed, but otherwise receive all the saving ordinances?
I find it hard not to glean anything else from the teaching except that without the sealing one would be cut off from their family.
I feel that this is one of those doctrines that sounds great on paper, but if you look too deeply beneath the surface it doesn’t hold up very well. Unless you believe in a cruel, uncaring God.
But that’s my cynical interpretation. I’m very curious to see what others understand of this subject.
We adopted a child many years ago and these questions went through my mind on a regular basis. Certain well-meaning family members tried to tell us that “our blood would run through his veins” once the sealing occurred. There were definitely elements of superstition and possessiveness that accompanied some of the things we heard. I did a lot of reading in those days and never found a convincing reason, in the standard works or otherwise, for the practice of sealing children to parents. It seemed to be a solution for a problem that didn’t exist and a holdover from the time when members were “sealed” into the families of leading priesthood holders in the church. I was never spirituality or emotionally moved by the church’s teachings on “eternal families”. I already knew my place in the family of man and felt a unity with all creation. Most importantly, I never worshipped or feared a God who would separate me from my child in the eternities. I still don’t. Our child was sealed to us, but the ceremony was pretty stressful, and the fact that it had taken place provided no comfort in the weeks and months following his tragic death 21 years later. No matter. My hopes and beliefs filled me with the vision of him basking in the beauty of eternity; finally at peace and, to paraphrase Paul, finally knowing himself as he was always known.
My sense has always connected it to Section 128, verses 17 and 18.
While Joseph connects it specifically to baptisms for the dead, I think it’s the same purpose.
Our sealings to our spouses is what creates/formalizes/ritualizes our individual eternal relationship to our spouse.
Our sealings of children and parents is what welds together each of those individual/couple links into a single great family web network.
In the fullness of time all will be sealed together, whether as individuals or as couples, into a single family. This is Israel or Zion or the family of God.
It’s a ritual enactment of our undying love and commitment to each other. The love which won’t give up on the other.
…even if sometimes we let those bonds do exactly the opposite, and destroy rather than save our relationships.
The doctrine of eternal family is not in the Standard Works. There is only a doctrine of eternal marriage. It is found only in two sections, both of which are about polygamy. Only after a couple is exalted will they begin to create their own eternal family. Now, here on earth, we are all siblings in Elohim’s family. We have no right over our children here. They are Elohim’s children.
It was only originally about marriage, not family as Saints think of it today. There is a reason:
Joseph was first commanded to take additional wives in 1834. He said so. He got the sealing keys in 1836. Those first marriages would not have been marriages by any legal or eternal definition. Smith created eternal marriage to justify his adultery.
It is a terrible shame that LDS parents live in fear of losing their kids in the eternities. It is a tragedy.
One understanding is that because we cannot *earn* eternal life (on Christ did) we are sealed for purposes of inheritance of eternal life (like the historical reason for adoption was to have a legal right to the parents inheritance).
I once heard it linked to the notion of resurrection being a priesthood ordinance, with the idea being that it can only be performed by a priesthood holder who is sealed to the recipient. So a father performs the ordinance of resurrection on his son, who then resurrects his wife and children, who then resurrect their wives and children, and off we go down the chain of generations.
I heard this years ago and can’t remember the purported original source (but let’s be honest—it was probably an apocryphal Brigham Young teaching). As I recall, part of its scriptural support was those verses talking about the generations needing to be linked to avoid destruction and burning, w the idea being that linking us all into one web allows the universal resurrection to take place, which then allows eternal life.
I’m not sure if I believe this, but I’m not sure I don’t. One thing it has going for it is that it gives a coherent explanation for why an adopted child would need to be sealed to his adopted parents (to enable his resurrection), as well as for why it doesn’t matter too much that children of divorce or of an early death of their father remain sealed to their birth father, rather than to a stepfather who raised them (b/c the thing that matters is that there be a sealing to A father w the priesthood (or even a priesthood chain, I imagine) who can resurrect them).
My take on sealing of blessings upon children pronounced in a temple sealing ordinance is quite different from most of the above.
I believe that the phrase “the same right to blessings as if they had been born in the covenant” refers to the blessings (long-term support, teaching, love, caring, loyalty, etc.) that a child receves if they have been born into a family in which both the parents are alive long enough to raise their children and, while doing so, keep and live all of the gospel covenants they had made leading up to and including the commitment they made to each other when they were pronounced husband and wife (ie. The parents were there and lived the new and everlasting covenant)
Early death of a parent will cause pain and suffering for a child, and abandonment, divorce, abuse, enouragement of wickedness, uncaring etc.,etc. do so as well. For me this pronounced blessing is a reiteration of the thorough and complete power of Christ’s Atonement to heal that pain and suffering: heal it so thoroughly that the child ultimately will not only experience the sense of being bouyed up and carried and settled and landed in the arms of God’s love in a way that erases all that pain…as if their suffering had not only not happened, but also to the extent that it is AS IF ALL the nurturing and attendant blessings that were not experienced, and should have happened, did happen.
As such, I find that this blessing is a cause for hope and a source of comfort for children who grow up experiencing the above very difficult things and those who love and are trying to help them in the face of these various sorrows, injustices and tragedies that befall way too many children and cause them such grief and emotional pain.
For me it is a reminder of the promise of Jesus’ Atonement, his compassion, and his power to ultimately and completely heal all wounds.
LJB – I was adopted by an LDS family and later sealed to my parents (who are good people). My dad always told me that the moment I was sealed that his literal blood would course through my veins as if I had been born to him naturally. It seems like a combination of superstition and wishful thinking. It never really bothered me but I can see for some people that it would be enormously offensive.
Re: sealing. This is an oversimplification, but I think of sealing as permission to visit someone in the Celestial Kingdom. If we’re sealed to our spouse we can visit them (and have sex with them?!) and if we’re sealed to our kids we can visit them. If we’re not sealed we’ll never see them after dying. I don’t believe this but it seems to be the essence of the sealing doctrine to me.
I don’t know the details of who will resurrect who. (Music echoing in my head-Nothing But the Blood of Jesus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vqwdk4Fdi0 ) I can tell you that some evangelicals reading this would vomit on their keyboards at the thought that anyone except Jesus is gonna raise anyone from death permanently.
Hey, my dad was a great guy, WWII heroic generation, Killed a bunch of Japanese dudes. His father probably even better. What about my mother? Will it be my father or her father who calls her forth? So men get the call from fathers but women from husbands? What about the cuckoos, bastards and wicked men in the links? A pecking order based on righteousness? What about a kinship of say 10 generations of vicious despots ? (Ex: Cleopatra and the Ptolemaics-scarcely a generation who didn’t murder their relatives to get to the throne.) Hell, this is going to get complicated. It seems like a blasphemous heresy in conventional Christianity for any of them to resurrect anyone.
This belief might also correlate with a prophet/church institute centered faith in stark contrast to a personal Christ-centered faith.
I am all for the positive benefits of the doctrine of sealing. Unity, inclusiveness, love of all like brother/sister, comfort at the death of parent/relative/ sibling/ friend/ child. But it comes at a cost to some of the most vulnerable and is hammered hard at tender ages. The frightened 14 year old who is aching from the recent divorce of their parents. The attractive sealed divorced young mother who is viewed by many eligible childless men as not wife material. The parents who fret at the empty seat around the celestial dinner table. The interdenominational couples who quarrel over it.
Quite contrary to the inclusive ideal of linking all the righteous together across the ages is the inconvenient fact that this sealing power is only available to a few who answer certain questions properly in a temple recommend interview and go into a elegant building to experience disturbing rituals; and by the way pony up that 10% of their income. Not exactly an indulgence, but enough it might invoke the wrath of Luther if he had heard of it.
Oh, we are so special having this unique ordinance. Except everyone else believes Almighty God can and will unite all the righteous families without the hassle of all these interviews and performances. The historical universalists of many stripes think this will happen to the wicked too, with or without some sort of purgatory. Maybe reincarnationists believe familes can be together forever as other species? Who knows?
For too many it is a distraction from the promises of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, His compassion, and His power to ultimately and completely heal all wounds. Another unique Mormon belief that seems nice but soon wanders away from Christ.
PS- Some well meaning family genealogist found the names of the yoke of male oxen who pulled the wagon across the plains and put them on the family group sheet. Another generation sealed the oxen to the parents. After quite a few decades they unsealed the oxen and kicked them out of heaven. I hope the oxen didn’t make too big of a mess during their sojourn there. That about sums up my thoughts.
This brings up to me the question of who would I be with (assuming I checked the right boxes of mortality)? I love my parents, but I 100X want to be with my wife. I assume the same will be with their own spouse (not spouses). So even though sealing marriages make lots of sense, I have always wondered what “Born in the covenant” really meant.
This is a great book that forever changed the way I look at sealings.
This reminds me of an old Guy Templeton post: https://wheatandtares.org/2013/06/13/bic-whats-the-point/
If we are actually living together in the Celestial Kingdom in a community, that community and the way we live and relate to one another will have to be organized in some way. My understanding is that it will be organized around family units, and that sealing is the formalization of the structure that is supposed to literally persist in the heavenly community hereafter.
While the doctrine is a bit messy in the myriad of ways it doesn’t seem understandable or fair here, it seems reasonable that we will be living by/with/among certain people in heaven in a literal sense, and our sealing practices would therefore be our best attempt at trying to mimic what that will actually be. Where/when we are mistaken, I assume those will have to be corrected, at the same time I don’t think it’s unreasonable that it is by the sealing power (Celestial gov’t if you will) that this organization is formalized – it does seem like heaven will be ordered and organized, maybe even perfectly so if it is truly to be a heaven.
The sealing ordinance, both spouse and parent/child, has nothing to do with who we will be with or how families will be organized in the next life. Otherwise, the ordinance would replace agency which it cannot although most members seem to think that it does. The purpose of the ordinance is to connect the entire human family not just to connect individuals to individuals. Since it’s purpose is to connect the entire human family, it really doesn’t matter who you’re sealed to as a child, as long as the connection or sealing is made.
DB, What kind of connection is it that doesn’t exist anyway, even without any sealing ordinance, by either mortal genealogy or by all being spirit children of God?
DB, I have heard that thought put forward–that the purpose of sealing is simply to connect everyone together (if you mean everyone who will be saved in the CK; if you mean everyone who ever lived–that’s something I haven’t heard), and therefore isn’t relevant to individual relationships. It’s an interesting thought, and makes things simpler in some ways, but the thing is that it is exactly the opposite of how Joseph Smith (and the early Church) taught the sealing doctrine.
Yes it was taught that there needed to be a great welding link for everyone to be saved (we without them cannot be perfect, etc.), but sealing was primarily about preserving and extending individual relationships to persist in the hereafter and create the literal network of heaven. You might argue Joseph Smith and early Church leaders were teaching with limited knowledge, and that they could be wrong, but they certainly taught it that way.
“That question got me to thinking on what we actual believe about the parent to children sealings. It is not like kids are going to live with their parents in heaven if they are sealed, and not live with them if they are not sealed. We will be living with our spouse, and our kids will be living with their spouses.
If you look at it that way it’s the opposite of creating a network of sealing that connects us all to one another and preserves whole family units. It locks everyone into one one-t0-one (or one-to-however-many in the case of polygamists) units and, thus, separates generations.
The “entry-level” understanding of this doctrine plays (preys) upon our sentimental feeling toward our children, and in many cases, our spouses. As you attempt to think about it and move beyond the highly sentimental appeal of the doctrine, it immediately falls apart, as is demonstrated by the confusion and expressions of bafflement throughout this thread.
The fact is that it doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense NOT because it is beyond our comprehension and we are just seeing through a “glass darkly.” It doesn’t make sense because it really doesn’t make sense. Not in the sense that Latter-day Saints believe it today.
It does, however, make sense in the way Brigham Young would’ve understood and taught it. And this is how he taught it:
I get married to a woman. I get married to a few more women. Through obedience, we all achieve an exalted state. Together, with my wife (wives), in our Celestial glory, we have spirit children. After we have accumulated a large number of children, I select one of my wives with whom to create a planet. My wife and I go down to that planet, eat fruit that changes our celestial nature back into a terrestrial nature, and now, with our terrestrial bodies, we can create mortal tabernacles for our spiritual children that we are going to bring down to our new world. This world is patterned after the old world where we used to live, where we gained our exaltation through obedience to eternal laws. I live out this new mortality and die once again. I return to my Celestial glory, select another of my wives, create another world, and together, we repeat the same process. This continues on for eternity. This is “eternal lives.” Worlds (notice the “s”) without end. My name is Adam. I am Heavenly Father. Here is Eve, the mother of all living, She is Heavenly Mother.
Now….THAT is sound logic. That makes sense. That is the Restored Revealed Doctrine. But today, Truth Revealed is the Truth Concealed.
And….it is false doctrine.
The modern Mormon concept of eternal family has been totally divorced from its origins, and thus, without that firm foundation, it lacks all of the logic it once possessed. And therefore, it continues to lead people astray from the Most High God, who was and is and ever shall be from everlasting to everlasting. World (no “s”) without end.
Hey, John, in your version of Brigham Young’s story, who were those others (Elohim and Jehovah) hanging out with Adam and Eve in the garden? Didn’t BY have something to do with either creating the creation and fall of Adam story contained in the endowment or at least in preserving it?
Wondering.
All the ideas expressed below are from a research paper title Jehovah as the Father, by Boyd Kirkland, published in Sunstone. It can be accessed online.
Joseph Smith believed that Jehovah was the Father of Jesus, and the early Saints would’ve believed the same thing. There is an 1842 prayer written by Smith, calling upon the “omnipresent Jehovah” and referring to Jesus as the son of this Jehovah. Other Mormon writers during the 1830s used the name Jehovah only for the Father as well. John Taylor wrote a hymn that identified Jehovah as the Father of Jesus.
What it seems is that, with slight variations, Smith and Young were teaching a genealogy of Gods, with Elohim being the father of Jehovah who was the father of Michael. Brigham Young however, inserted Michael into the family tree between Jehovah and Jesus. Young taught that Jesus was Adam/Michael’s son.
So…Elohim and Jehovah were great-grandfathers in a divine lineage.
So great was the confusion in 1895, that Wilford Woodruff had to issue a statement telling the members to stop wondering who Adam is or who Christ is,….or who Jehovah is…..But that didn’t stop the confusion. In 1896, (and I quote from the article by Kirkland) “”Edward Stevenson, one of the Seven Presidents of Seventy, had “a deep talk” with President Lorenzo Snow about the Adam-God doctrine. Afterwards, Stevenson wrote in his diary concerning the temple creation gods: “Certainly Heloheim and Jehovah stands before Adam, or else I am very much mistaken. Then 1st Heloheim, 2nd
Jehovah, 3d Michael-Adam, 4th Jesus Christ, Our Elder Brother, in the other World from whence our spirits come …. Then Who is
Jehovah? The only begoton [sic] Son of Heloheim on Jehovah’s world.””
The current temple endowment does not explicitly link Jehovah with Jesus. It can be interpreted that way, but the link is never explicitly made. The endowment is still fairly compatible with the Adam-God doctrine.
John, greatly appreciated.
For what its worth (not much) I don’t know what exactly is accomplished by sealing children to parents but I also am not particularly worried about it.
I cannot believe what has happened in the last 24 hours. We adopted an older teenage girl from Russia a few years ago.
She had many difficulties but with patience she overcame most of them. She graduated from college with a degree in history.
She met the most handsome guy in the ward, and married him after dating for 2 years. What a wonderful wedding.
He is from Colombia and their cultures are not very compatible. Both are opinionated and not patient. But they were in love.
They were sealed in the temple. His mother was not given a temple recommend. She had lost her job and let various relatives
live in her house for a little rent in order to pay the mortuage. The bishop considered that income upon which no tithing was paid.
They lost the house in the end anyway.
Our adopted daughter had to live with her mother-in-law for over 2 years who resented her because of the wedding. It was not the
only source of stress but certainly a chronic catalyst.They had 4 children the oldest in school now. She could not handle them and he
would not help. He brought a 14 year old distant relative here illegally to be their nanny. She was not in school and socially
isolated. It felt like trafficing even though the girl liked having more food, a/c and overall a better life. He was angry when
she insisted he send the girl back home.
Recently things have gone from bad to worse. He spends little time at home and gets verbally abusive. He spanks the
children too hard in her view. She has gained weight and is not physically appealing to him any more. I could see the signs
and he indeed has a mistress.
She found out. Caught them in the act in his truck in a walmart parking lot.. They had a big fight when he finally came home.
He hit her and threw her out. She left with the kids and I can only imagine her agony. She talked to my wife. She left the children
with his mother, went out in the woods and hanged herself last night.
He does not want his kids, neither does his mother. We have them for now. Tonight is the first night and they are asleep now.
We face an uncomfortable funeral, a legal battle and who knows what else. At age 63 I am not read for 20 more years of parenting
which was fun when I was younger. They are so cute but so undisciplined.
In light of this who cares about sealing. It didn’t matter.
Anon. Lurker–so sorry this has happened. God be with you all.
I have a question. We aren’t sealed to our friends. Does that mean we won’t ever see them or get to visit them? Surely not.
Wondering – I really don’t understand your question so I cannot comment on it.
Steve LHJ – I should clarify that the sealing ordinance is twofold, the sealing ordinance for spouses includes covenants which are essential for salvation, however, the actual sealing, exclusive of the covenants, between either spouses or parents/children is intended to unite the entire human family. At least, that’s my understanding. It binds the entire human family together. It doesn’t force anyone together or separate any biological relationships (like I said, it can’t replace agency) but it does provide a welding link necessary for the salvation of the entire human family. Did Joseph Smith and early church leaders teach with limited knowledge? Of course they did and we still do today. Joseph Smith would have been the first to admit that his knowledge of the gospel was limited since he was constantly gaining new knowledge. We continue to teach with limited knowledge though we like to pretend that’s not the case.
mez – Since the sealing unites the entire human family, we are all sealed together. Family, friends, everybody.
If there is an all loving, all powerful Creator (And, I personally believe there is…) I think he/she is the Father of all who have and are, living on the face of the Earth. I DO NOT for a nanosecond that that this Creator will discriminate between loving Mormon parents and families and say…loving Hindu parents and families. In more blunt terms, I perceive that the sealing ceremonies practiced within the LDS Church are nothing more than earthly rituals which are designed to stimulate closeness and bonds within a family and tribe. I no longer think they have any binding influence in Heaven. The thought of a great Creator gathering only LDS people together under his/her wing..while the rest of his/her children are left to destruction or simply thrust down to Hell…….”makes reason stare”.
Meant to say “he/she is the Father or Mother of all”…..
Meant to say “I think he/she is the Father or Mother of all”……
“The thought of a great Creator gathering only LDS people together under his/her wing..while the rest of his/her children are left to destruction or simply thrust down to Hell” is not a thought I have ever in more than 6 decades of regular church attendance heard taught as if it were LDS doctrine. I suspect your mileage may vary. The church is not the same everywhere nor do its teachers all teach the same things nor do its listeners all hear the same things. Some will even insist that the temple work for the dead is the LDS version of universalism — pretty far from Lefthandloafer’s thought that makes reason (and some other capacities) stare.
Jr: how about I clean up my nomenclature a bit and say “I can’t imagine a loving Creator gathering only those families who have been ritually sealed in God’s (LDS) Holy Temples ; and granting (only these) the highest degree of exaltation, glory and eternal increase”. That’s pretty bedrock LDS Doctrine isn’t it? Or, is that just in my little corner of Mormonville?
Lefthandloafer: Now you’re on to something I recognize from my little corner of Mormonville also. However, it is incomplete, in my experience, because you omitted earlier teachings about sealings that were not organized by families, and current teachings about singles not being denied any such blessings in the hereafter even though they don’t have sealing ordinances in this life, and teachings that the sealing ordinances will ultimately be performed for everyone so that the issues become not the absence of sealing, but instead (a) individual choice to accept it or not, and (b) delay. Of course, none of that makes much sense out of a lot of family structure issues, past and present, if one wants to insist (as many now do) that sealings and “families can be together forever” means intact, mortal, nuclear, traditional families, rather than merely that the whole human family can be sealed to the family of God. The latter usually-unspoken minority view may be merely a corollary of your view that “the sealing ceremonies practiced within the LDS Church are nothing more than earthly rituals which are designed to stimulate closeness and bonds within a family and tribe” across generations living and dead.
I suspect we differ mostly on the validity of your first “nomenclature” as if it were Mormon doctrine, on whether your second is a sufficient description of the relevant doctrine — at least as I’ve heard it taught, and not on whether we can ultimately make some kind of universally applicable sense out of the whole constellation of LDS teachings on the subject.
Looking back, there are uses/abuses of alleged sealing power that are even weirder than most contemporaries imagine. E.g., the posthumous reinstatement of Amasa Mason Lyman (ex’d by BY; reinstated by a subsequent church president with “all his blessings” and with a comment that he “had suffered long enough.” Who knows what “all his blessings” means since some of his wives had divorced him because of/or after the excommunication and seem then to have been sealed to others? Who knows what it means to perform proxy sealings of a deceased wife to her several successive husbands? I don’t expect to be able to make sense out of those or many currently more common scenarios. Perhaps sealings matter primarily to the participants who believe they matter and for whatever effect they or the desire to make them available to the dead may have on folks’ hearts expanding to include others living or dead.
For myself, I’m inclined to Anonymous lurker’s current view, but I have also seen sealings and the desire to perform them and other ordinances for the dead make a remarkable, positive difference in the lives of a number of others. I don’t expect to make sense out of those differences either. At this point, making sense out of it is not a job I choose to take on.
Cheers.
Lefthandloafer – Like I stated in my other comments, the purpose of the sealing ordinance, and proxy ordinances for the dead, is to bind the entire human family together, not just Mormon families.
Nicely done, JR. My compliments.
Good morning, DB:
Thank you for your comments. I’ve really enjoyed this entire discussion. May I ask a couple of follow up questions? (And, please know that I’m not trying to be snarky at all – I’m asking in sincerity)
Do you believe the following:
1. That the entirety of God’s plan for all of his children, throughout all ages, is found within the LDS Church?
2. If so, do you also believe that all of God’s children will at some point (either here or in the afterlife) be given the opportunity to accept “the Gospel” as defined by the LDS Church & it’s doctrines?
3. If so, do you then believe that those who accept “the Gospel” as defined by the LDS Church will be given the opportunity to obtain exaltation and everlasting life in the Celestial Kingdom?
4. If so, what then happens to those who do not accept “the Gospel” of Jesus Christ – as defined by the LDS Church- but chose to worship God in their own way, according to their own culture and dictates of their hearts – and are good and noble people – to their brothers and sisters on this earth?
Thank you very much (in advance) for your opinion and perspective!
Lefthandloafer
1. I believe that we have as much of God’s plan as has been revealed to us at this time. There is much about His plan that we don’t know and don’t understand. We do the best with the knowledge we have.
2. Yes, I believe all of God’s children will at some time have the opportunity to accept His gospel in its entirety. That includes those in the LDS church today.
3. Yes, I believe those who accept it and are willing and able to abide by the laws of the Celestial Kingdom will have that opportunity.
4. I believe that all of God’s children will be saved and will receive as much as they are able to accept.
Thank you very much DB for your thoughtful responses. If I may, one additional question:
Do you consider the LDS Church to be the only “gateway” or path (for lack of a better term) for these greater events to happen?
Much appreciated.
Lefthandloafer – I believe that Christ is the only “gateway” or path for those greater events to happen. Whether the work is done in this life or the next, it is through Him. While it is His work and He directs the work, the work itself is carried out by His servants. And yes, I do believe that the LDS church is His church that He reestablished and gave His authority to to carry out His work.
DB, I have been following the exchange between you and Lefthandloafer with interest. You have expressed a very Catholic idea here: Christ is the only gateway, and he has ordained his church to carry out this work. That’s good Catholic doctrine straight from the Catechism. The reason I bring this up is that when I was a Latter-day Saint, I don’t remember sitting in any church meetings in which the Early Church Fathers or any of the Catholic saints or leaders down through the ages were revered. But I do remember sitting in many meetings, some very official (General Conference) in which the names of the Protestant Reformers are revered.
However, the Protestant Reformer’s primary argument was that authority is NOT invested in the church, but in the word of God. The argument over works vs faith was significant, but it was only part of the Reformation. Luther and others were teaching that the “church” is not a hierarchical organization with the authority needed to bring about man’s salvation. They were teaching that the church is the community of all true believers, and the authority to baptize and offer the Lord’s Supper comes from the word of God. Wherever believers gather to perform these rites in accordance with the instruction set forth by Christ himself in the Bible, that is where the authority is found.
I know that the LDS church doesn’t like to be lumped in with the Protestants, but in a way, I think the LDS Church is very “protestant”…..in that it represents a protest against Protestantism and a return to a very Catholic view of the role of the church.
Martin Luther would be rolling over in his grave to hear LDS leaders speak of him with respect, because Luther was fighting against just about everything that the LDS church is.
If the LDS see the Reformers as men who were breaking the iron grip of Catholicism, then why is the LDS Church trying to restore the iron grip of Catholicism? Is it a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend?”
John – Those are interesting observations. I can really on give my uneducated opinion but I think the LDS reverence for Protestant reformers is likely due to American religious culture which is largely Protestant and in the 19th century when the LDS church was formed was very anti-Catholic. I also think early LDS church leaders may have seen the Protestant reformers as preparing the way for the restoration much like John the Baptist prepared the way for the Jews to receive Christ.
DB, that make sense, and is a good explanation. Studying Protestant Christianity, I became aware that the Book of Mormon isn’t anti-Catholic at all. In fact, reading the Book of Mormon, you would suspect that Joseph Smith didn’t know much about Catholicism. It doesn’t address any Catholic doctrine. The issues that Catholics and Protestants debated (real presence in the Eucharist, Marian devotion, Purgatory, Eucharistic Adoration, invocation of the Saints,…..) the Book of Mormon is completely silent.
We erroneously think that the passages against infant baptism are addressing the Catholic practice, but they are not. The vast majority of Protestants also practice infant baptism. It is one area in which the Catholics and Protestants agree. But the Baptists do not. The issue of infant baptism was debated among Protestants. And that is why it shows up in the Book of Mormon using the exact same language (solemn mockery….abomination) that was being employed against it in Protestant writings at the time Smith would’ve been growing up. (Seriously, there are several Protestant essays which refer to infant baptism as a solemn mockery, and these were published before the Book of Mormon.)
So….what we have is a book oblivious to Roman Catholicism. What it isn’t oblivious to are the debates among the Protestants, however, and in that context, the Book of Mormon comes down decidedly on the side of the Arminians (Methodists), as opposed to the Calvinists (Presbyterians).
Joseph Smith was a Methodist.
The Book of Mormon is an anti-Calvinist screed. Then, fast forward to D&C 76, and you have Smith trying to incorporate Universalism into his doctrine. This was a huge scandal, and many members walked at that point.
Joseph Smith was a Methodist.
Lucy Mack was a Presbyterian.
Joseph Smith, Sr. was a Universalist, and his father was actually a very prominent Universalist preacher.
The doctrinal lay-out of early Mormonism is entirely accounted for in Smith’s own home. The later esoteric additions to this basic Christian foundation can be found in Smith’s own magical/occultic practices, the influence of Freemasonry, and his acknowledged exposure to Swedenborgianism, which was very popular at the time.
As I see it, this wasn’t a Restoration. This was a highly intelligent and creative individual who had the ability to connect a wide range of influences and ideas into what appears to be an integrated whole. But upon closer inspection, the seam between the basic Christian foundation and the later esotericism is glaringly obvious. Latter-day Saints have two definitions for most of the basic Christian terminology. This is the seam.
One definition accommodates the basic Christian understanding. The second definition makes room for the later additions.
In D&C 76, it states that all men will be saved, and the degrees of glory make this possible. Damnation is outer darkness. But in D&C 132, the definition of damnation is expanded. Anyone not exalted in the Celestial Kingdom is said to be damned. So some of those saved in 76 now find themselves damned in 132..
It is a twisted system in which salvation is also damnation.
But that is Mormonism. 76 is used to win converts. Who doesn’t like universal salvation? But 132 is used to keep those converts in line after baptism, because anything other than full exaltation is called damnation. And that is scary.
It is a system set up to control people through very a subtle bait-and-switch. The basic Christianity of the Book of Mormon is part of that bait. In the temple, we find the switch in all its fullness, and then it is too late. We have bound ourselves by covenant to give everything we have to the Church.
John, I think it’s pretty pessimistic to see it as a bait-and-switch system, I haven’t seen any evidence of sinister intent. Rather I see the tensions arise from 2 truths taught simultaneously that as yet don’t have apparent reconciliation. However, like Relatively and Quantum Mechanics are not reconcilable but offer us the greatest understanding of the physical universe that we can currently comprehend and are pointing towards an ultimate theory of everything, so also I believe these doctrinal tensions (universalism, damnation, etc.) are likewise truths that are incomplete but the best we have pointing toward an ultimate theology of everything.
DB & John: Good afternoon, my friends. Thank you so much for the ongoing dialogue and for your thoughtful, insightful perspectives. I’ve TRULY enjoyed our exchange.
DB: you made the following (great) comment:
“I believe that Christ is the only “gateway” or path for those greater events to happen. Whether the work is done in this life or the next, it is through Him. While it is His work and He directs the work, the work itself is carried out by His servants. And yes, I do believe that the LDS church is His church that He reestablished and gave His authority to carry out His work.”
It’s interesting (and honestly uplifting) to see that you and I completely agree on the first two sentences. “” that Christ is the only gateway”or path for those greater events to happen. Whether the work is done in this life or the next, it is through Him.” My life experiences, study and learning (and perhaps age) have simply lead me to the conclusion that no single church (or religion) is the sole arbiter of the salvation and grace offered by Jesus Christ; including the LDS Church. While the LDS Church has many fine doctrines and does many fine things – I no longer perceive it as being the gate-keeper for all mankind.
Again, thanks so much guys. I wish I knew you both in the “real world”.
Lefthandloader – I also agree with your statement that “no single church (or religion) is the sole arbiter of the salvation and grace offered by Jesus Christ; including the LDS Church.” While I do believe in the authenticity of the LDS church, the restoration, and the priesthood authority, to state than any church is the arbiter of salvation places that church ahead of or above Christ.
Does this answer my question? “The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught a 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. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.”
Orson F. Whitney, in Conference Report, Apr. 1929, p. 110.