The Most Comforting Doctrine
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.
A search of Gospelink reveals that after this quotation was originally uttered by Orson Whitney in a 1929 General Conference, it lapsed into obscurity until noticed by James E. Faust in the November 1990 Conference report. Soon after its resurrection by Faust it appeared in around 17 publications, most notably in subsequent Conference reports: Packer (May 1992), Hales (May 1999, May 2004), Faust (May 2003), and Winkel (May 2006). Perhaps the most thorough study of the doctrine’s implications was done 1n 1996 in Robert Millet’s When a Child Wanders. Dr. Millet gives his take on some questions I think might make for some interesting bloggernacle discussion:
Will the power of the covenant coerce straying individuals into obedience?
Isn’t it possible that one can stray so far as to forfeit blessings hereafter?
Doesn’t the Prophet Joseph Smith’s statement regarding the sealing of righteous parents seem to indicate that the parents’ calling and election must be made sure?
Don’t we believe that if a person rejects the gospel in this life that person will reject it in the world to come? Isn’t it true that if one wanders from the fold here one is not likely to return hereafter?
Don’t these kinds of teachings motivate some young people to neglect their duty and “sow their wild oats”?
So how would you answer these questions? Some source material that might be useful can be found in Joseph Smith’s August 13, 1843, sermon as compiled by Ehat and Cook’s The Words of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
“Don’t these kinds of teachings motivate some young people to neglect their duty and “sow their wild oats”?”
I would say no. I think the power of external incentives and disincentives to change behavior is vastly overestimated.
“Will the power of the covenant coerce straying individuals into obedience?”
No. Some folks just need a little more time than others to learn how to receive God’s love.
“Isn’t it possible that one can stray so far as to forfeit blessings hereafter?”
Yes, but it is not written that there will be no end to that forfeit.
“Doesn’t the Prophet Joseph Smith’s statement regarding the sealing of righteous parents seem to indicate that the parents’ calling and election must be made sure?”
If so, then as a matter of logic, there ought to be plenty of time for parents to get their act together as well as their children.
“Don’t we believe that if a person rejects the gospel in this life that person will reject it in the world to come? Isn’t it true that if one wanders from the fold here one is not likely to return hereafter?”
I think the scriptures suggest that a change in circumstance does not guarantee a change of heart. Time, however, is all about change.
“Don’t these kinds of teachings motivate some young people to neglect their duty and “sow their wild oats”?”
Perhaps, but on the other hand, hope in future can be a powerful motivator for good.
If my understanding of doctrine is correct, everyone who inherits any degree of glory will have to accept Jesus eventually. Which degree they inherit will depend on how valiant they have been and are willing to be in their testimony. So I see nothing in the quote that contradicts that. The vast majority of the children of God will “feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold”. The question is when and how thorny the path will be.
Perhaps my reading of the quote is different than some poeple. Did Joseph Smith guarantee that wayward children of sealed couples will be in the Celestial Kingdom? That doesn’t seem to be the case to me. He only says that they will accept the savior “sooner or later”.
Whitney was echoing a fairly common nineteenth century perspective, at least among leadership. There is an account of a discussion, after a meeting where they blessed their children, if I remember correctly, between Brigham and Heber, where they discussed this doctrine in the Brigham Young Office Journal, Book D.
Since it alludes to the parable of the prodigal son, it might be worth remembering that even though the prodigal was welcomed back with rejoicing and forgiveness, it was still the faithful son who inherited all that his father had–the prodigal could still live with his father, but not live like him since he had wasted his inheritance.
I admit this statement troubles me when I hear it; for many people it seems to imply (based on how I’ve seen them restate it) that a parent’s righteousness can eventually override a rebellious child’s sinful behavior. They still have their agency, and I don’t believe growing up in a gospel-centered home will save them if they want to follow other things.
J.,
I have a incomplete compilation of quotes from 19th century leaders and certainly one of the most interesting is the one is one I pulled off one of your blogs.
This speaks somewhat to the question of what position parents are in to help their children after the parents get their calling and election made sure. The promise of recovering wayward children is seen as being still conditional on right action of the parents.
Perhaps a comparison can be made here to a power extended to Nephi in Helamon 10, a proto-typical elect individual. Nephi was given sealing and binding keys to be able to obtain whatever he asked God for. However there was a built in constraint or understanding that Nephi would only ask for things in concert with God’s will. Perhaps there is more work to be done and more redemptive grace and mercy to be won to affect the will of the wayward child and the will of God towards reconciliation, but an eternity of time to strive to bring this condition about.
An interesting wrinkle on the August 13th sermon is that it on the occasion of Elias Higbee’s funeral and we know how—from the LDS Church’s perspective—how rotten Higbee’s sons turned out. There are some late recollections that Joseph Smith offered to be sealed to some of the Higbee’s (and Law’s and Foster’s) spouses to help save them despite their husbands.
In trying to put Joseph’s original teachings into place, I see no reason to to single out wayward children as those who can be the beneficiaries (or ride the coatails) of the elect. The power of Elijah was meant to help save ancestors, posterity, spouses, and friends. It was only after Wilford Woodruff’s time that sealing practices became much more systematic and less charismatic.
Here are some short excerpts from accounts of the Aug. 13th sermon:
“When a seal is put upon the father and mother it secures their posterity so that
they cannot be lost but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father.”
—William Clayton, Diary, 13 Aug. 1843
“… the Covenant sealed on the fore heads of the Parents secured the children
from falling”
–Franklin D. Richards “Scriptural Items,”
“A measure of this sealing is to confirm upon their head in common with Elijah
the doctrine of election or the covenant with Abraham–which which when a Father
& mother of a family have entered into their children who have not transgressed
are secured by the seal wherewith the Parents have been sealed.”
—Howard and Martha Coray notebook
Ehat and Cook comment on the Coray account:
Keller: “Perhaps there is more work to be done and more redemptive grace and mercy to be won to affect the will of the wayward child and the will of God towards reconciliation, but an eternity of time to strive to bring this condition about.”
I think it must be so. It’s the only thing that makes sense (to me) when considering the position of an all-loving God who holds most sacred the prime directive of not interfering with the agency of his children.
I agree with Horebite (#3). I believe the salvation referred to is salvation from spiritual death–i.e., the wayward children will eventually be brought out of hell into a degree of glory (but not the celestial). I will allow as how it is comforting to know that their time in hell will eventually end, but that outcome is no different than that of wayward children whose parents did not keep covenants. Maybe it means that they cannot become sons of perdition.
Or, better yet, it means that the 19th century sermons were not transcribed correctly (like the Corey account above) and Whitney misunderstood them.
In regards to #3, I don’t think the idea that that wayward children are merely saved from spiritual death can survive a close reading of the accounts of the Aug. 13 sermon. The point is well taken, as #9 observes that we have to careful to the possibility of recording error. I think it also goes without saying that we should allow for doctrine to develop in the Mormon Church. I generally like to think that we make progress towards further light and knowledge as time passes, but I also think that this is one of those doctrines that lapsed out of discussion between 1929 and 1990, and when it made a comeback in 1990, very little in the way of scaffolding beliefs came with it.
With that said the concepts were not completely obscure during at that time period, it is just that writers quoted reconstructions of Joseph Smith’s sermon instead of the much more polished Orson Whitney citation.
Joseph had both public and private teachings on this subject. I am trying to stay out of trouble and stick to the public ones. The sum of his teachings is reflected in the interpretations of early leaders. Taken together I am confident they indicate that Joseph Smith was referring to a Celestial quality or (debatable) exhaltation quality post-mortal destiny for children of the elect.
As an example, consider the “Scriptural Items” account of the Aug. 13 sermon:
As an aside, Joseph had outlined his views on Revelation 7:3 sealing as early as March 1832 in what has become D&C 77. However, it is apparent that this revelation was not widely distributed as it shows up in neither the 1833 B0C or 1835 D&C. It wasn’t even recorded in the Kirtland Revelation Book. I point that out for the benefit of those recognize there was a prior text that did reveal the meaning of Rev. 7:2-3, it just wasn’t widely known until (IIRC) Franklin D, Richards published it during the 1850s. Another thing I would like to point out that this isn’t the only time Joseph dropped hints that he knew more than he publicly taught, as it wasn’t the “proper place.” Here is the relevant passage:
As an aside to my aside, there appears to be some tension between some of the answers of seals in D&C 77 referring to past eras. (Mormon commentaries on the passages speculate, from a young earth paradigm, about Adam or Enoch being the conquering hero on the back of a white horse, for example.) However Joseph cautioned about speculating about the Revelation and then launched into his own:
Sorry about that tangent but there are so many that one can take in considering the source material behind the most comforting doctrine. Back to the subject at hand, it is not all that comforting that spiritual death won’t last forever. The source for that belief is D&C 19 which turns around and portrays how uncomfortable suffering for unrepented sins will be.
Keller, thanks for this very interesting topic.
Of course all parents with wayward children worry about them and wonder what will happen to them if they wander too far and reject the Gospel. History does not seem to indicate that all children will come back to the Gospel no matter now faithful the parents. Do we think that Cain — Master Mahan — is going to the Celestial Kingdom? Given that he was guilty of murder, most likely not.
Personally I tend to think that faithful parents will be rewarded in ways that are not always obvious. Certainly they will be blessed themselves, especially if they are faithful to the end. But perhaps their grandchildren will come back. I know many, many grandchildren of faithful grandparents who parents completely rejected the Gospel — yet something surprising happens with the grandchildren and they feel the “tentacles of Divine Providence” bringing them back.
To answer your questions:
Will the power of the covenant coerce straying individuals into obedience?
No coercion will go on, but children will be given many, many chances to accept the Gospel and eventually they may indeed accept.
Isn’t it possible that one can stray so far as to forfeit blessings hereafter?
Yes, take a look at Cain. I would imagine John C Bennett and others strayed too far.
Doesn’t the Prophet Joseph Smith’s statement regarding the sealing of righteous parents seem to indicate that the parents’ calling and election must be made sure?
I don’t see it that way, but I do think faithfulness is necessary. Perhaps temple-worthiness?
Don’t we believe that if a person rejects the gospel in this life that person will reject it in the world to come? Isn’t it true that if one wanders from the fold here one is not likely to return hereafter?
I just don’t read the scriptures that way, and this seems to reject everything about our temple work. It seems to me that many, many people will have a “could have had a V8″ moment when they are in the spirit world and will change completely.
Don’t these kinds of teachings motivate some young people to neglect their duty and “sow their wild oats”?
I don’t see that at all — young people neglect their duties and sow their wild oats for lots of other reasons but not because they are somehow saying, “oh, I’ll be saved later.” Most of them are thinking of the here and now, not the future punishment.
The doctrine still leaves unspoken exactly what the prodigal is returning to: exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, a lower degree in the Celestial Kingdom, the Terrestrial Kingdom, or the Telestial Kingdom.
Those who are exalted in the Celestial Kingdom will very likely be able to associate with the lower two degrees. Not only because the lower two degrees are servants to the exalted ones, but I also believe that it is so because section 76 states that those of the Celestial Kingdom (it leaves open which of the three degrees, though) will “minister to” (perhaps visit) the Terrestrial Kingdom. Hence, those of a given degree will be able to “step down” at least one degree for visits or ministering service.
Section 76 and the Book of Revelation of the Bible are clear that _all_ inhabitants of all three kingdoms of glory will have “accepted” the gospel prior to the great judgement day at the end of the millennium. _Everybody_ will acknowledge it, and _everybody_ will be clean and spotless (either from having been washed clean by the blood of the Lamb, or having paid the price themselves) as Christ presents the entirety to the Father.
So the phrase “back to the fold” could still indicate back from death/hell/gaol/hades/spirit-prison to any of the three kingdoms, or any of the three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom.
Some Mormons speak as if exaltation is synonymous with salvation in the Celestial Kingdom. It is not. Keeping one’s _baptismal_ covenants is the “ticket” to the Celestial Kingdom. It is keeping one’s _temple_ covenants is the “ticket” to exaltation. (Please don’t jump on me for not inserting the entire plan of salvation here, the Atonement, Grace, etc, etc.)
We have practically no canonized details beyond Section 76 and Section 132 about how the Lord judges people worthy of the three kingdoms of glory.
The Lord blesses and pours out his Spirit upon whom he will. However, if one takes that to its logical extreme, one arrives at Calvinism and predestination. (In my opinion, Calvinism is a flawed manner of viewing/interpreting God’s foreknowledge.)
We assume that those who die before the age of accountability will be heirs of exaltation, though if I remember correctly the scripture only says Celestial Kingdom, not exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.
And we assume to be correct the oft-repeated statement by General Authorities that “those who remain single through no fault of their own will not be denied blessings in the worlds to come.”
Bottom line: We should be mainly concerned with our own salvation, and developing our ability to abide by celestial law in order that we may abide by whatever eternal weight of glory the Lord would want to bestow.
Geoff,
I think your answers are correct. I will supplement them by taking a different route to get to the same conclusions. Joseph taught that the children would be secured with the same seal as the parents. I suppose the idea is that a parent can help lift their child up to their level of eternal progression.
The sermon on August 13, 1843, came very shortly after D&C 132 and I suggest the two should be taken together. When covenants (like baptism or temple marriages) are initially entered into, it is understood that obtaining the promises associated with them is conditioned on faithfulness. After a period of faithfulness, the promises are no longer conditional but virtually guaranteed (this is equivalent to getting one’s calling and election made sure). Virtually because there is still a short list of sins that can nullify the guarantee and any sin can prolong the suffering or time that it takes to obtain the promised blessings.
A short list of ways to mess up on D&C 132:19’s sure thing is also is started at in D&C 132:19: murder definitely qualifies and by extension denying the Holy Ghost (as Joseph said that such was to crucify(murder) Christ(innocent blood) afresh). However, I have argued on occasion that adultery (”abide in my covenant” remains a requirement in v. 19) and excommunication (if becoming elect gets one’s name written in the Book of Life than name removal would appear to nullify an election-made-sure).
So if there are ways for a parent to lose the blessings of being sealed up to eternal life, then it stands to reason that the coat-tail sealing effect can’t be any stronger for the child. Therefore a wayward child like Cain, who commits murder, would not be able take advantage of Adam and Eve’s election/exaltation to the extent that he becomes Celestial material.
As to question:
Doesn’t the Prophet Joseph Smith’s statement regarding the sealing of righteous parents seem to indicate that the parents’ calling and election must be made sure?
I agree that faithfulness to temple covenants is a sufficient condition as far as a parent’s contribution is concerned. Not everybody will get their calling and election made sure in this lifetime, but if they are faithful there is no reason to suppose they won’t pass through that milestone in the next life and be in position to help prepare the way/build mansions for their posterity.
I think we should be careful about extending the Parable of Prodigal Son to cover all the eternal possibilities. In the Parable the father only had a finite amount of material possessions available for inheritance and was eventually going to die. In contrast, when Celestial beings inherit what the Father has, they gain attributes like Him and enjoy relationships with other like-progressed individuals (the same sociality, Zion, the Church(assembly) of the Firstborn, etc.). We could weigh the prodigal son parable with the one in which the 11th hour laborers were paid the same wage (eternal life) as the sunup to sundown laborers.
So I would agree with #12 that we don’t really know what state the wayward child/ prodigal is really going to be at upon return. Since the Whitney quote is ambiguous in this respect, I think it worthwhile to consult sources more contemporary with Joseph Smith. But the possibility of transcription error, the shortage of scriptural support, the way doctrine develops over time, and the lack of much current, correlated doctrine on the subject means that we can all come to our own diverse conclusions on the subject. I do wish to point out there is some historical material worth pondering and praying for understanding about.
I do not think the parable of the prodigal son was meant to illustrate how eternal rewards will be allocated–it was meant to illustrate Jesus’s love for those who stray (like the lost sheep parable).
I think the parable of the laborers is slightly more relevant (but not precisely on point). It does illustrate that the length of time we serve God is not as important as the fact that we serve Him when hired. It does not address, however, what the laborer hired at the beginning would receive if he or she took some unscheduled “time off” in the middle of the assignment.