OK, many of us have heard the quotes from Boyd K. Packer and other GAs re: the sealing power, in regards to 'children who stray' who are practically guaranteed to come back, or another GA who stated that if your children stray they will have to pay for their sins but they will still be sealed to you.
So, stay with me here, as I understand it, the sealing power is only in effect in the Celestial kingdom, i.e., you can only be united as a family in the celestial kingdom. SO, putting these 2 things together, children who stray have to pay their debts for their sins themselves (since they don't repent, the Savior doesn't do it), and then they get the celestial kingdom.
I have a problem and many questions with this idea. For instance, I have a brother in law who was convicted of child molestation 16 years ago. He was ex'ed and HATES the church now because of it. My mother-in-law clings to the idea that he will still be in the CK with them because of the sealing power, but how does this jive with the concept that 'better that a millstone be hung about their neck than they hurt any of these my little ones'? And how is it fair that many good people who didn't accept the gospel end up in the terrestial kingdom while others who openly reject the gospel and sin wantonly get the CK because of something their PARENTS did? I think I must be misunderstanding something or something because these 2 ideas just don't jive with me. Mahonri, others, what is your understanding of this doctrine?
I do not think that is true. There is no way someone can ever pay for their own sins. The sealing means that they are sealed to their parents, but the parents will have to leave the celestial kingdom to visit them.
Eventually, through the temple work during the millenium, everyone will be sealed to some parental unit. So that would mean that everyone would go to the celstial kingdom.
I don't think everyone's going to the Celestial Kingdom by a long shot.
My letter from Pres. Hinckley concerning my temple divorce gave me the impression that my children will have the blessing of being sealed to parents if they are faithful. Specific parents were not inferred. Just as being "sealed" in the temple to my ex did not "guarantee" any type of relationship in the next life. You do not ride to the CK on anyone else's coattails.
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
There is a difference in "straying" and "rebellion". That may be a pertinent thing to consider.
I have read nothing that states that just because the parents are righteous, the children will be "saved" regardless of what they do. If so, then Laman and Lemuel are going to end up with Lehi and the righteous part of that family in the eternities.
But, to those who simply stray (without necessarily breaking greivious commandments), I think the promise of parents staying righteous and keeping their covenants will somehow play a real role in their children turning around. I've seen it happen with some of the kids I grew up with who strayed.
The key is unfeigned love and as a result the child choosing to use his or her agency to turn around.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
It's been my opinion for a long time that one of the things the sealing power does when it comes to children and why it is significant is that it opens another "authorized" line of revelation from "righteous parent" to needy child.
Just as a patriarchal blessing, or a bishop over ward members, or an individual can go to God for a blessing and counsel and assistance, so too can a child go to their parent, and moreso to a spiritual degree to both parents, when they are sealed. The sealing powers form one more channel to our benefit and blessing.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Cat, I see what you're saying and I've seen the same thing, where children strayed, broke some rather serious commandments, but repented and came back. 'If you bring up a child in the way he should go, he will not depart from it' kind of stuff. So I see that being part of it.
I guess part of what troubles me is that there are members of the church, like my MIL, who cling to the idea that they can't lose their children, and they take statements like those of Brother Packer and run with them. I was teaching RS on Sunday on the talk 'Mothers Who Know' and I brought up the responsibility we have as mothers, and I said, 'because wouldn't it be horrible to be in the hereafter and realize that your child was not going to make it and that it was your fault.' To which an older sister brought up a statement (by Vaughn J. Featherstone, I believe) saying that the children have to pay for their own sins (which I KNOW is part of the doctrine, as I have heard it from multiple sources that those who do not accept Christ will have to pay hereafter) and then still be with you (that's the shady part of the doctrine). I didn't know what to say. I think there are 2 problems with people (primarily women from what I've seen) clinging to this doctrine. 1) They don't acknowledge the mistakes they have made in raising their children. They like to think they are part of those mentioned in the quotes who are innocent, righteous parents who have done all and therefore are guaranteed blessings and their children coming back, but frankly, they royally screwed up and they are not entitled to that promise. But as a human I am incapable of making such a judgment, so who's to say?
and 2) I don't think the doctrine means everything will be as hunky and dory as they like to think it means, like the kids will come back (even if they never did in this life) and be celestialized and everything perfect in the hereafter. But you guys are right -- if that were true, then the dream of Lehi seeing Laman and Lemuel unable to partake of the fruit of the tree of life would be untrue.
I was teaching RS on Sunday on the talk 'Mothers Who Know' and I brought up the responsibility we have as mothers, and I said, 'because wouldn't it be horrible to be in the hereafter and realize that your child was not going to make it and that it was your fault.'
See, this is exactly the flipside of the same "doctrine." If your kids don't have some sort of CK guarantee because of righteous parents, they don't become damned for less than righteous parents, either. Both schools of thought throw out agency and justice all at once. At least that's how I see it.
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
Aye, Coco, sorry, you're right. I shouldn't have stated it that way (and I swear it came out better when I taught my lesson). But we DO know that parents will be held responsible for teaching (or not teaching) their children correct principles, so there will be those in the hereafter with that 'crap what did I do' feeling. The way I see it is that children will be responsible for what they knowingly violated and (for the good) what they learned on their own and overcame on their own. Parents will be responsible for what sins they taught their children through omission of righteous teaching or commission of teaching them things they knew were incorrect.
You know, I feel like it all comes down to agency and everyone having the responsibility to do the best that they can with what they have. I'm not the best mom. Far from it. But I'm trying my hardest and making an effort to do better where I falter.
Right now I'm responsible to teach my kids the best that I can. They're responsible to keep those teachings the best that they can, as long as they're true teachings AND they gain a testimony of them. At some point they become adults, and it's up to them to build on the learning I've sent them out with. There isn't some formula that I have to do exactly this, or else, and they have to do exactly that, or else. . . but we do have to learn and teach what we can, with the help of the Spirit.
I think that as long as I'm doing MY best, and praying for help, and trying to improve, that neither I nor my children will be punished for where I'm lacking.
As far as the OP, I've always understood it much like Cat explained it.
__________________
"There is order in the way the Lord reveals His will to mankind. . .we cannot receive revelation for someone else's stewardship." L. Tom Perry
Your MIL might be visiting your BIL in hell (Telestial Kingdom) after he has paid for his sins... and he'll still be hers through the sealing power, but unless he repents and Christ makes it right, he won't be in the celestial kingdom. I'm not the judge. I've read Elder Packer who quoted Orson Whitney but I don't read it the way your MIL reads it.
David from the Old Testament repented of his sins, he has paid for them and the Lord has forgiven him, but forgiveness doesn't ensure exhalation nor does it mean that he'll be in the Celestial Kingdom. Those are Pres. Packers words paraphrased, not mine. Modern scripture tells us that he'll be in the telestial kingdom.
Let your MIL hold onto her hope. It's all she has. Pray for your BIL.
__________________
no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing... the truth of God will go forth till it has penetrated every website, sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done
then the dream of Lehi seeing Laman and Lemuel unable to partake of the fruit of the tree of life would be untrue.
Actually, Laman and Lemuel refused to come to the tree and partake of the fruit. There is nothing to indicate in the scripture that they were unable to. Lehi plead with them to come forward with the rest of the family. They choose not to.
An individual's agency to chose freely always wins out over the influence, good or less than perfect, of parents. If there was no hope that a child could turn around, why would any parent put forth the sometimes years and years worth of effort to work on the child's "redemption"?
That, and what Mahonri said...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
And she's a very sweet lady.
