- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
“When a seal is put upon the father and the mother, it secures their posterity so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother” (Joseph Smith, History of the church 5:530) “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 that fountain from whence they sprang.” (Discourses of Brigham young,208)
The question is: Does the seal that is spoken about refer to the second endowment or simply the sealing of a man and women?
Honestly? I have no idea, and I don’t really care.
Since I believe WAY more people will be exalted than most members believe (that the “final judgment” will be nothing more than a confirmation of one’s growth whenever it is complete at some point in eternity), I can accept this concept without believing it happens literally with some particular sealing ordinance. In other words, I can believe that “sealing” really is an unbreakable seal of some sort – even though I don’t tie any literal sealing to a precise ordinance moment but, rather, see it as a process instead of an event. That also means I can believe it happens for anyone who is committed to being sealed, even if they have no exposure to the concept of sealing ordinances.
I agree that that many more people will be exalted then the main steam thinks. President Wilford Woodruff was clear when he said “I tell you when the prophets and apostles go to preach to those who are shut up in prison . . . thousands of them will there embrace the gospel.
They know more in that world than they do here.” However the question stand simply because of a switch in policy. Later GA’s have stated that the sealing power is conditional upon certain criteria. I think this is the case because most members do not have their full endowment (part2) unlike the early church where the second endowment was common place.
That could be, MM – but, being totally honest, I really don’t care. I figure if there is such a moment, I will find out about it if I am doing my best to become Christ-like, either in this life or another – and if there isn’t, I will find out about that, as well. Fwiw, I also know some people personally whom I would say make the 2nd anointing a “gospel hobby” – obsessing over it to the point of distraction from helping others and actually living a Christ-like life.
If I have to choose between one or the other, I will choose to try to become Christ-like every time – but I don’t begrudge in the slightest anyone who wants to believe in and work toward a 2nd anointing, even if I don’t care personally.
Mormon-Mason wrote:“When a seal is put upon the father and the mother, it secures their posterity so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother” (Joseph Smith, History of the church 5:530)
“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 that fountain from whence they sprang.” (Discourses of Brigham young,208)
The question is: Does the seal that is spoken about refer to the second endowment or simply the sealing of a man and women?
These quotes are troublesome for some Mormons because it seems to invalidate personal agency. We so emphasize agency and being judged against our works that we sometimes miss the wonder that is the vicarious atonement. I, like Ray, am not particularly interested in what specific ceremony these holy men were referring to. I am confident that God has sealed us His and to His fountain will we return “from whence [we] sprang.” Our children, wherever they may go, are never “lost” to God!
I did notice that an article in June’s Ensign touched on this very theme:
Quote:I believe and accept the comforting statement of Elder Orson F. Whitney [1855–1931]:
“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. 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.”
A principle in this statement that is often overlooked is that they must fully repent and “suffer for their sins” and “pay their debt to justice.” I recognize that now is the time “to prepare to meet God.” If the repentance of the wayward children does not happen in this life, is it still possible for the cords of the sealing to be strong enough for them yet to work out their repentance? In the Doctrine and Covenants we are told:
“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, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation.”
We remember that the prodigal son wasted his inheritance, and when it was all gone he came back to his father’s house. There he was welcomed back into the family, but his inheritance was spent. Mercy will not rob justice, and the sealing power of faithful parents will only claim wayward children upon the condition of their repentance and Christ’s Atonement. Repentant wayward children will enjoy salvation and all the blessings that go with it, but exaltation is much more. It must be fully earned. The question as to who will be exalted must be left to the Lord in His mercy.
http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/06/dear-are-the-sheep-that-have-wandered?lang=eng While I disagree with his conclusions, I can appreciate Pres. Faust’s effort to reconcile the conflict in these statements. It seems that he has done so by watering down the promise made to parents of wayward children. According to him, the only thing that is being offered is salvation in one of the lower kingdoms AFTER they suffer for their sins, pay their debt to justice, AND FULLY REPENT (I thought the whole point of repentance was to miss out on all the suffering and debt payments.)! So what’s the big whoop about being BIC? Doesn’t everyone but the Son’s of Perdition get the same?
Finally, Pres. Faust introduces another dichotomy. He states that “[Exaltation] must be fully earned.” And then in the next sentence states that “The question as to who will be exalted must be left to the Lord in His mercy.” But if only those that have “fully earned” the right to exaltation will make it – then what place can mercy have?
Roy you seem to have come to the point I have been trying to reach. In the early church the doctrine was taught as if that sealing would save all. I think this was because the second endowment was commonplace. As you pointed out Pres. Faust teaches that a price must be paid and I think its because we lack (as a church) that ordinance that once was common. And thus those quotes from the past don’t actually apply to us. I also think that the universalization of the temple ordinances (which concept I love) has done a lot to lessen the emphasis on something beyond the first time there that would draw people back to the temple. Old-Timer wrote:I also think that the universalization of the temple ordinances (which concept I love) has done a lot to lessen the emphasis on something beyond the first time there that would draw people back to the temple.
I’m not sure I have grasped what your trying to say Ray?
Are you talking about the simplification and reduction of temple ceremony to make others feel more comfortable? Sorry I didn’t make it clearer. Given my time constraints right now, I’ll try to be concise but clearer: Back in the day, temple attendance wasn’t a regular or constant thing. In some areas now, it’s taken for granted and not “new” at all. Back then, a second trip to the temple wasn’t on the regular member’s radar, so a “second anointing” meant something special simply from a practical standpoint – unlike in most established areas now.
Also, we now teach that every person who ever has lived will be sealed to spouse and posterity – and that wasn’t the initial teaching. Initially, being sealed was a much more exclusive practice, and an extra layer of exclusivity carried a lot of weight – kind of a way to distinguish between levels of commitment within the Church and give an extra seal of approval, so to speak. Now, because the concept of being sealed has been “universalized” and extended to all, there isn’t such a stark line between the sealed and the unsealed in this life. We also have built separate lines of exclusion, the primary one being the temple itself and regular attendance there.
That sounds cynical, but I don’t mean it to be. I prefer generic temple attendance to the primary maker of commitment over the second anointing, even though I don’t like some of the actual attendance requirements we currently have and some of the cultural crap that has developed around it. I love the temple and its theology, and I like the universalism in our current understanding FAR more than the exclusivity of the former understanding. I am totally fine with the evolution of understanding I see throughout the scriptures and our modern history, even though I don’t like some of the mutations that have developed inevitably as a result of evolution.
Mormon-Mason wrote:Roy you seem to have come to the point I have been trying to reach. In the early church the doctrine was taught as if that sealing would save all. I think this was because the second endowment was commonplace. As you pointed out Pres. Faust teaches that a price must be paid and I think it’s because we lack (as a church) that ordinance that once was common. And thus those quotes from the past don’t actually apply to us.
Ray seems to be saying that these quotes from the past are out of context for us because the sealing ceremony was less common. Originally it was offered exclusively to members that had already proven a certain amount of loyalty to the church. If I remember right, one of the requirements of joining the anointed quorum was to accept polygamy at least in theory. So the sealing was given as a sort of reward for faithfulness.
I similarly remember promises of salvation to both individuals and their households of women that JS wished to add as plural wives.
So in summary – It could be that the sealing (in any of its parts) was less common back then and somewhat exclusive. It could be that JS was promising salvation in a variety of ways to those closest and most faithful to him. It is not uncommon for those that report visions of Christ to be told that their sins are forgiven them AND JS with the endowment/sealing was trying to bring everyone symbolically into the presence of God …. so this does make some sense symbolically.
I personally don’t like the feel of ordinances that are so powerful by themselves that they represent a free meal ticket for the individual (let alone for the individual’s kids). I am ok with this symbolically.
Whatever the conclusion, these quotes don’t quite seem to fit with our modern understanding of these things. Has our understanding evolved, or degenerated, or simply changed? Depends on who you ask.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.