posted
The term, at least as referenced on membership records, is "Born in the Covenant."
For instance, when our family reviews our membership records, five of the six of have the initials BIC under the heading for (I think) Sealed to Parents.
But I was adopted as an infant and was sealed to my parents several months later. I don't have the initials BIC--I have the date of my sealing to my parents.
As far as that goes, the only difference is for record keeping. It doesn't affect the blessings that became mine when I was sealed to my parents.
Posts: 555 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My parents & I are sealed together, but I was not born in the covenant. I'm a convert, joined the Church after my parents were deceased. They were not Church members. I had their temple work done vicariously. As a living person, I was sealed to them, with two living proxies officiating for them. So we have the same eternal promises as a couple that was sealed during life & their children who were BIC.
The condition that applies to all families that are sealed, whether in life, after death, or living persons to their kindred dead as in my case, is that the blessings are contingent on everyone remaining worthy & faithful.
quote:What It Means to Be Born Under the Covenant p.59 What then does it mean "to be born under the covenant"? Certainly, the newborn babe is under no contract with the Lord and for some years will not be able to make one. The covenant under which he is born is not then one of his own making. It can only refer to a contract entered into by the parents with the Lord—a contract, the benefits of which, carry over to the children. This is not a new idea. Even in civil affairs children inherit the contract rights of the parent and can enforce them in courts of law.
When a man and woman are married by the Lord, in his temple, through him who is anointed and ordained unto this power, their children are recognized as theirs by the Lord for time and for eternity. The relationship of parent and child in such instances does not end at death but is an eternal relationship so that the child is forever a part of his parents' kingdom with all of the rights and privileges they may have merited. Hence to be born under the covenant is a distinct blessing and advantage, if the parents are faithful.
Heirs of the Covenant p.131 Not only does the covenant of marriage in the temple bring blessings to the husband and wife, but many of these blessings are had by their children born after such marriage. We say of such children that they are "born under the covenant" and are hence "covenant children" or "heirs of the covenant." As children born under the covenant of marriage in the civil state become heirs of the property and contract rights of their parents, so children born of parents having a covenant with God become heirs of that covenant and are entitled to their share of the blessings which flow from it.
Adopted children, sealed to their foster parents by the priesthood in the temples of God, likewise become heirs to the covenant previously entered into by their foster parents and are blessed accordingly.
William E. Berrett, Teachings of the Doctrine and Covenants,
posted
Children who are sealed to their parents are specifically blessed "as though" they were born under the covenant. The blessings are bestowed retroactively, and is one of the remarkable aspects of the sealing of children, imo. That birthright or status of being born in the covenant can be bestowed by the sealing keys is amazing. It suggests to my mind that there is no blessing or privilege, even one's status of birth, in the Gospel that cannot be obtained by obedience to the Gospel Standards. One cannot claim that so and so had it harder or was not as favored of God than someone born into the church, for the very fact that even that blessing is attainable through righteous and faithful living.
posted
So does this mean adopted children can be considered "Born under the covenant?" Can that phrase be use on them specifically? Sorry... I do not want to go into the reasons for my asking. It is an important question to me though. I know here is says they'd be considered "Heirs," but that's not what I'm asking.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Born in the covenant and born under the covenant are the same. Unless I'm very, very much mistaken.
And I've never had a reason for anyone to call me "born under the covenant" as opposed to "sealed to my parents." (Except for record-keeping.)
The blessings are identical and, as rayb pointed out, retroactive, so that the sealed child is given all the blessings "as though" born in the covenant. That works for me. I don't really care what anyone calls me as long as I have the blessings. I can't personally come up with a situation in which it would matter to me what I was being called, so I'm afraid I can't help with that question. Sorry Posts: 555 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: So does this mean adopted children can be considered "Born under the covenant?
When a couple is married/sealed in the temple an "eternal family" is created. So, I can think of one possibility, where this might be true. If a child were born to parents who were at the time of his/her birth sealed and then later legally adopted by the step father/mother, it would not be necessary for them to be sealed as an adopted child, because they would already have all the promises that are available to them through the Holy Spirit of Promise. Let me give you an example that I am privy to.
A sister I knew years ago, very well in fact... was married to am RM in the Salt Lake temple. At that moment when they were sealed a new "family" was created. Unfortunately this sister's husband decided within months of their marriage to forsake his own covenants and abandoned her, with little warning. Obviously there is a lot more to that part of the story, but it is not important for the discussion here...
A few weeks after her first husband left her, she discovered she was expecting a baby. Her baby was born exactly 2 weeks after her "legal" divorce was finalized. Those divorce proceedings were started by her first husband. So "technically" my friend had no husband at the time of the birth of her first child... however even though the "father" never provided any financial or emotional support at any point up until this young man's birth or after... his mother had been married in the temple, and that sealing had not been canceled by her or her previous husband... so her son was due all the blessing of that covenant, and was BIC (or born under the covenant, which ever way you want to say it... as has been stated it really means the same thing.)
Approx a year later this sister was married & sealed at the same time (one week after receiving a sealing cancellation from her first husband... who had not been excommunicated...) to her second husband, who approx 3 months later was able to legally adopt her son as his own. His biological father had in fact been anxious to have his legal rights severed, because he didn't want to pay child support... Anyway that son is listed on their records of the church as their first child, noted as adopted by her husband... and he is also BIC because there was at the time of his birth a valid sealing still in place...
There was no need to do anything more for this child, as far as the family unit was concerned after his legal adoption. A notation is on the family group sheet only because it helps to clarify the union of his parents and the child's sealing status at the time of their union. This child has been raised by his "dad" and I have been told that he thinks of his biological father as someone else might think of a sperm donor. He is no different than any of his siblings and there is no distinction placed upon his connection to the family. They have all accepted that this is how things should be, and do not doubt that Heavenly Father is happy with them all for not straining at gnats as I have seen some children of previous sealings struggle with.
All the children have the same last name because of his adoption... and due to the unusual nature of his birth all the children are BIC, although the covenants were not all exactly the same for the parents. Really the only indication that there is anything unusual is that the parents were married in the temple in 1984 and he was BIC in 1983. I'll bet in years to come someone will stop to pause over that one... Because it is an unusual circumstance, but it is completely right.
That said, that is about the only type of situation, or something similar to it that I can think of... where an adopted child could be "born" in the covenant.
I suppose if a child were adopted by a couple after he/she were born to a mother that was sealed to someone at the point of their birth and then adopted out that would also be a situation where the adopted child would not need to be sealed to the adopted parents?
When speaking of sealings one must remember that the sealing of children to the family of God, through the Holy Spirit of Promise is extremely important to our Heavenly Father. So important, that the sealing promises are not broken, just because a sealing between the parents change in status. At least not in the same ways that sealings of spouses can be dissolved... the parents worthiness even has has nothing to do with children's promises of an eternal family.
quote: The relationship of parent and child in such instances does not end at death but is an eternal relationship so that the child is forever a part of his parents' kingdom with all of the rights and privileges they may have merited. Hence to be born under the covenant is a distinct blessing and advantage, if the parents are faithful.
I believe this is slightly erroneous.
I have been taught that children are blameless when it comes to the sins or choices that their parents might make, and to me that makes perfect sense... I believe this is one of the most beautiful parts of the blessings given to children through temple covenants... and it gives me such a feeling of wonder and peace, that I am completely able to let Heavenly Father work out all the details of how those blessings are fulfilled. I personally walk by faith that these ordinances are valid even when parents make choices that invalidate their own promises/covenants to each other. As has been stated. Once the sealing of a family has taken place, all promises necessary for that family to be together for eternity are in place, and are retroactive for those children and the worthy couple... the only thing that removes those promises are individual, unrepentant sins. Heavenly Father does not break His covenants with us... ever.
quote: It follows that, if the sealing between the couple is canceled, so is the sealing of the children to the couple. That's one reason why cancellations of sealings are as difficult to obtain as they are when children are involved.
As I said, it's been a long time since I looked through the Handbook, so if someone knows better -- I mean really knows better -- I'd like to hear about it.
quote: “What happens when a couple gets a temple divorce? What happens to the children in the next life?”
James A. Cullimore, “Q&A: Questions and Answers,” New Era, Dec. 1975, 14–15
Answer/Elder James A. Cullimore
As to the first question, “What happens when a couple gets a temple divorce?” we should understand that there is no such thing as a temple divorce. What we refer to as a temple divorce is in fact a cancellation of a temple sealing. When a couple is married in the temple, they not only satisfy the law of the land as to a legal civil marriage, but they are also sealed for time and all eternity in an eternal relationship.
A civil divorce nullifies the marriage so far as the civil law is concerned, but only by a mandate of the president of the Church can the sealing of the couple be cancelled. A cancellation of the sealing is what we are really referring to when we talk about a temple divorce.
When one has been granted a civil divorce after his temple sealing, he must be cleared by the First Presidency before he can be granted a temple recommend by his bishop. After a divorce clearance has been granted by the First Presidency, an application for a cancellation of the temple sealing might be made to the president of the Church. Normally it is the woman who seeks a cancellation of sealing. Since a woman cannot be sealed to two men at the same time, she must have a cancellation of sealing from one before she can be sealed to another.
As to the next question, “What happens to the children in the next life when there has been a cancellation of sealing of the parents?” it is understood that in the case of a cancellation of the sealing of the woman to the man, this does not cancel the sealing of the children to the parents, since they were born in the covenant, which is a birthright blessing. They remain in the status of the sealing to their parents and can never be sealed to anyone else. The decision as to with whom they will go will be determined by the Lord in the hereafter.
Regarding being born in the covenant the General Handbook of Instructions states, “Children born in the covenant cannot be sealed to anyone, but belong to their natural parents. This rule is not altered by adoption, consent of the natural parents, request of the child after becoming of age or death of the natural parents.” (P. 101.)
It should be kept in mind that to be born in the covenant is a birthright blessing, and that if a child remains worthy in this life of celestial blessings, regardless of the actions of his parents, he is assured of that birthright and is guaranteed eternal parentage. One’s worthiness in this life through living the gospel and keeping the commandments, in this as in all things, is the key to eternal life.
quote:When speaking of sealings one must remember that the sealing of children to the family of God, through the Holy Spirit of Promise is extremely important to our Heavenly Father. So important, that the sealing promises are not broken, just because a sealing between the parents change in status. At least not in the same ways that sealings of spouses can be dissolved... the parents worthiness even has has nothing to do with children's promises of an eternal family. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The relationship of parent and child in such instances does not end at death but is an eternal relationship so that the child is forever a part of his parents' kingdom with all of the rights and privileges they may have merited. Hence to be born under the covenant is a distinct blessing and advantage, if the parents are faithful. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: Children born to parents thus married (sealed in the temple) are natural heirs to the blessings of the priesthood. They are born in the covenant. Hence, “they require no rite of adoption or sealing to insure them place in the posterity of promise.” 23
Rewards for obedience to the commandments are almost beyond mortal comprehension. Here, children of the covenant become a strain of sin-resistant souls. And hereafter, President Hunter, Emily, other children of the covenant, and “each generation would be linked to the one which went on before … [in] the divine family of God.” 24 Great comfort comes from the knowledge that our loved ones are secured to us through the covenants
quote:4. Blessings for children born in the covenant. All children born to the two of you are born under the blessings of the sealing covenant; thus, it is common to say that your children are “born in the covenant.” They are entitled to blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, including:
a. The gospel
b. The priesthood
c. Celestial marriage
d. Eternal life (see Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 13).
It is revealing to know that even if the two of you cease to be faithful in keeping the covenants you make in the temple, these blessings will still flow to your children. It is equally comforting to know the Lord has provided that adopted children and children born to a couple before they are sealed in the temple (as with new converts to the Church) may be sealed to their parents, and upon such sealing they also become entitled to these same promises and blessings.
posted
I think that the question was: are adopted children born in the covenant. Tje question was not: can they receive the same blessings as if they were. Yes, they can receive the same blessings after they are sealed. But it is my understanding that they are not designated as born in the covenant. My brother and his wife adopted several children, two of them infants, and it was necessary for every single one of them to go to the temple to be sealed to their parents. That is the distinction. It is not necessary for children who are born in the covenant to be sealed to their parents, while it is necessary for children whar are not born in the covenant. Being born in the covenant certainly does not in any sense imply any sort of superiority of blessings or worthiness to those who are sealed in the temple to their parents.
Posts: 3433 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MiraclesHappen: Did you get your question answered?
Randy: I think the question had to do with the phrase "Born under the covenant." MH wanted to know if it was the same as "Born in the covenant." And MH seemed to be hinting at something larger than a designation on a family group sheet.
It is my (very limited understanding) that when talking about sealings, the two terms are used interchangeably, and they mean the same thing. That is, it applies to children born to parents that are sealed at the time of the birth. "Born under the covenant" seems to be a term that was used more 100 years ago than it is now. "Born in the covenant" seems to have taken its place.
Such children have "BIC" listed on their pedigree charts/membership records in the spot for "sealed to parents" date. Adopted children list the actual date they were sealed to their parents. They are not considered "Born in the Covenant" or "Born under the Covenant."
I was not sure what Pollyanna meant when she said this:
quote:the parents worthiness even has has nothing to do with children's promises of an eternal family.
However, I believe that "parents worthiness" can have a very large impact on their children's promise of an eternal family. Their worthiness gives their children a huge head start. Joseph Fielding Smith said this:
quote:Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.90
It may be asked, what is the advantage coming to those born under the covenant? Being heirs they have claims upon the blessings of the gospel beyond what those not so born are entitled to receive. They may receive a greater guidance, a greater protection, a greater inspiration from the Spirit of the Lord; and then there is no power that can take them away from their parents. Children, on the other hand, who are born to parents who were married until death separates them, have no claim upon such parents, and such parents have no claim upon the children after the resurrection from the dead.
(He also said some other interesting things about it, but this most directly addresses Pollyanna's statement, I think.)
Again, adopted children can claim this same blessing once they are sealed to their parents. Just to be clear.
What I cannot find is where "Born in the covenant" replaced "Born under the covenant." President Ezra T. Benson used both terms in his talks. Perhaps it started with him. Perhaps in the computer age they had to decided on one term and "BIC" looks better on the membership records than "BUC." I don't know. (Perhaps "Brian Ignatious Cunningham" made the decision. )
However, again, George Q Cannon use the term "Born in the covenant" while others of his day (Brigham Young, for example) was using the term "Born Under the Covenant:"
quote: In this way the Latter-day Saints are being bound together in the new and everlasting covenant, wives being sealed to their husbands, and children, the offspring of these marriages, being born in the covenant, under the blessing and the recognition by the Almighty of the bond that exists between their parents. Thus you see that there is a new order of things growing up among us. It is not necessary, where parents are thus sealed together by the authority of the Holy Priesthood for time and for eternity, that their children should be adopted or be sealed to them. They are legitimate heirs of the Priesthood and of the blessings of the new and everlasting covenant. But not so with those who have been born outside of this covenant. There has to be some ordinance performed in order to make them legitimate; and that ordinance, the Prophet Joseph revealed, was the ordinance of adoption; that is, that which covers the ordinance or law, although we do not use the word adoption when we seal children to parents; we call that sealing. But to illustrate the principle and explain the law, the word "adoption" is used. You will find it frequently in the Scriptures, and it has become a subject among us that has been very much thought about; and every man and woman, who has wished to do all that is required of them in order to obtain all the blessings that can be had through obedience to the commands of God, has desired to understand something about the principle of adoption. Collected Discourses, Vol.4, George Q. Cannon, April 8, 1894
(Note what he says about adoption. Also, it is interesting to read some of the older writings about it because they put a much greater value on being "born under the covenant" than we do. It was after all, the first "generation born in the church" in this dispensation. Perhaps we take it more for granted.)
quote:When we had a temple prepared in Nauvoo, many of the brethren had their children, who were out of the covenant, sealed to them, and endowments were given. Then parents, after receiving their endowments and being sealed for time and eternity, and they have other children; they are begotten and born under the covenant, and they are the rightful heirs to the kingdom, they possess the keys of the kingdom. Children born unto parents, before the latter enter into the fulness of the covenants, have to be sealed to them in a temple to become legal heirs of the Priesthood. It is true they can receive the ordinances, they can receive their endowments, and be blessed in common with their parents; but still the parents cannot claim them legally and lawfully in eternity unless they are sealed to them. Yet the chain would not be complete without this sealing ordinance being performed. Discourses of Brigham Young, p.401
One interesting thing I came across in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism under "Artificial Insemination:"
quote: The General Handbook of Instructions (1989) states: "A child conceived by artificial insemination and born after the parents are sealed in the temple is born in the covenant. A child conceived by artificial insemination before the parents are sealed may be sealed to them after they are sealed."
and this:
quote:Born In the Covenant:
Latter-day Saints make several formal covenants with God such as baptism, confirmation, ordination to the priesthood, and eternal marriage, commonly called temple marriage. A temple marriage or sealing refers to the ceremony in which a man and a woman are married (sealed) to each other for time and eternity in a temple by the authority of the holy priesthood. Children born to the couple after this marriage are automatically sealed to their parents eternally and are spoken of as having been born in the covenant.
Children born to parents not members of the Church or to members who have not been married (sealed) in a temple by priesthood authority are not born in the covenant. However, if these parents subsequently are sealed in temple covenants they can have their children sealed to them, and can secure the same eternal family ties as if all were born in the covenant.
For the eternal blessings of being sealed as a family member to be valid, each must remain faithful to his or her covenants. [See also Salvation of the Dead.]
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.1, BORN IN THE COVENANT
I think I am beating a dead horse now. Back to lurking.
posted
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.90
It may be asked, what is the advantage coming to those born under the covenant? Being heirs they have claims upon the blessings of the gospel beyond what those not so born are entitled to receive. They may receive a greater guidance, a greater protection, a greater inspiration from the Spirit of the Lord; and then there is no power that can take them away from their parents. Children, on the other hand, who are born to parents who were married until death separates them, have no claim upon such parents, and such parents have no claim upon the children after the resurrection from the dead. -------------------------------------------------
Okay so I get the not having claim on one another with no sealing but I have issues with the first part. My oldest is not sealed to anyone. This is through no action nor choice of hers. I firmly do not believe that the Lord denies her anything because of the sins of her parents. Yes she has consequences she deals with from that. But I do not believe my children who were BIC have greater guidance protection and inspiration than she does. In fact if anything I see God and his protection power guidance and inspiration more powerfully in her life than anywhere else. I see Him lift and guide and direct her as she navigates the fall out form her parents bad choice many years ago. She has a stronger brighter testimony than most adults I know and she knows and loves the Lord. The Lord seems to bless her abundently to help offset teh consequences she faces because of her parents choices. I don't see her being limited spiritually because of it- if that makes any sense.
Posts: 685 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was not sure what Pollyanna meant when she said this:
quote:the parents worthiness even has has nothing to do with children's promises of an eternal family.
However, I believe that "parents worthiness" can have a very large impact on their children's promise of an eternal family. Their worthiness gives their children a huge head start. Joseph Fielding Smith said this:
Clarification: my comment was meant as ~ "in the event parents are not faithful to their OWN covenants" which let's face it... happens... The children that are a part of that family-covenant (meaning any children born/sealed to those parents) are not denied all the blessing of that covenant for which they are worthy. (Referencing your quote from Elder Cree-L Kofford: "It is revealing to know that even if the two of you cease to be faithful in keeping the covenants you make in the temple, these blessings will still flow to your children.")
It is my understanding through reading the many lessons and teachings where prophets and apostles are quoted that all faithful children will be provided with eternal blessings though the family of God, no matter what the faithfulness of their parents. IMO this would also indirectly address Marie2's concern. We have been taught that no blessing will be denied a faithful son or daughter of God... Period.
For example: my husband is indirectly (and directly in some cases) responsible for connecting over 1000 family members (ancestors) to the family of God... but, is not sealed to anyone except me and our children... yet. He is worthy of all those blessings, has been actively and joyfully involved in providing that missing link for his family and simply waits for a time in which he can been sealed to those ancestors, because his own parents reject the gospel.
I think I better leave this one alone now... it is just so hard to say things so that everyone understands, you know it...??? ...dang Internet...
ETA: Marie... JFS said They may not They will... I believe (HUGE personal opinion here...) that in many cases it is true that children BIC have great advantages, but it is not a given. I also know that some children are blessed in greater measure for their willingness to stand faithful without all the advantages of the gospel throughout their youth. (Hubby being one tremendous example of that.)
quote: When one has been granted a civil divorce after his temple sealing, he must be cleared by the First Presidency before he can be granted a temple recommend by his bishop.
Unless I am extreamly special (which according to my hubby I am )I did not have to have the First Presidency's oky-doky to have a recomend after my divorce. It was never taken away, and was renewed when the time came.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for those of you who were born in the covenant, whose parents were sealed in the temple before your birth, there is no question in my mind that you made some very special promises and commitments to Heavenly Father before you came into the home where you were reared. Thus, I believe that we each ought to have a very in-depth, soul-searching evaluation of our lives this morning. Are we living up, in every way, to the promises and the blessings that Heavenly Father has in store for us? Is there anything in our lives, young people, that could be better? Is there any transgression dragging behind us that needs to be cleared up? Are we preparing in every way to fulfill the callings that Heavenly Father has in store for us?
quote: In answer to the last question, to be born in the covenant is a birthright blessing. A child in the covenant retains that birthright so long as he is worthy, regardless of the action of his parents.
This means that, if the child is worthy of celestial blessings when his days of probation are over, he is guaranteed eternal parentage.
quote:Unless I am extreamly special (which according to my hubby I am )I did not have to have the First Presidency's oky-doky to have a recomend after my divorce. It was never taken away, and was renewed when the time came.
A lot has changed in this policy since 1975.
Posts: 75 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...there is no question in my mind that you made some very special promises and commitments to Heavenly Father before you came into the home where you were reared. Thus, I believe that we each ought to have a very in-depth, soul-searching evaluation of our lives this morning. M. Russell Ballard, "You—the Leaders in 1988," Ensign, Mar 1979, 69–73
Amazing concept... having the gospel from birth is an extensive blessing that I am just beginning at the age of 50 to appreciate...
I know that in my own life being raised in a home with faithful parents who honored their temple covenants was a great blessing for all the children in my family, unfortunately not all of us have done a very good job of hanging on to those special opportunities and blessing. Some have not recognized even to a tiny degree what a true blessing it is... and in one case actively severed those blessings (my sister has had her name removed from the church.)
I wonder what each of us in my family will be asked to account for??? Do any of us on the earth have a clue what our stewardships entail? I know many converts that have done a much better job with the stewardship they accepted when coming to earthly families, than I have done...
quote:They may receive a greater guidance, a greater protection, a greater inspiration from the Spirit of the Lord; and then there is no power that can take them away from their parents.Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.90 (emphasis added)
Always our choice, even when given great advantages...
quote:Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.90 RECLAIMING CHILDREN BORN UNDER THE COVENANT. Those born under the covenant, throughout all eternity, are the children of their parents. Nothing except the unpardonable sin, or sin unto death, can break this tie. If children do not sin as John says, "unto death," the parents may still feel after them and eventually bring them back near to them again.
On this point President Brigham Young has said: "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."
quote:PARENTAL CLAIM ON CHILDREN BORN UNDER COVENANT. All children born under the covenant belong to their parents in eternity, but that does not mean that they, because of that birthright, will inherit celestial glory. The faith and faithfulness of fathers and mothers will not save disobedient children.
Salvation is an individual matter, and if a person who has been born under the covenant rebels and denies the Lord, he will lose the blessings of exaltation. Every soul will be judged according to his works and the wicked cannot inherit eternal life. We cannot force salvation upon those who do not want it. Even our Father's children had their agency before this life, and one-third of them rebelled.
It is the duty of parents to teach their children so that they will walk uprightly and thus obtain the blessings of their birthright.
But children born under the covenant, who drift away, are still the children of their parents; and the parents have a claim upon them; and if the children have not sinned away all their rights, the parents may be able to bring them through repentance, into the celestial kingdom, but not to receive the exaltation. Of course, if children sin too grievously, they will have to enter the telestial kingdom, or they may even become sons of perdition.
When a man and a woman are married in the temple for time and all eternity and then separate, the children will go with the parent who is justified and who has kept the covenants. If neither of them has kept his covenants, the children may be taken away from both of them and given to somebody else, and that would be by virtue of being born under the covenant.
A child is not to be sealed the second time when born under the covenant, but by virtue of that birthright can be transferred.
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.92
posted
Quark... is it your impression that I disagree with you, or are you answering another question/comment? Without any comment from you, or references as to what you see as incorrect, how do we decide what issues your posts are trying to clarify...?
I also found many of your quotes in my searches... They are comforting... I very much appreciate the gospel and the chance to be BIC... and I recognize that I have a lot to live up to... Am I missing something you are specifically tying to tell me?
...I really feel like such a poor communicator...
Posts: 6447 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When a man and a woman are married in the temple for time and all eternity and then separate, the children will go with the parent who is justified and who has kept the covenants.
Even if an excommunication happens to one of the parents, if that parent repents and comes back into the church through the Gate, and goes through the process of having temple blessings restored, then the children, whether sealed or BIC, will go with that parent who is now worthy. Of course, the children have the right to choose to turn away from their own birthright covenants.
Posts: 1305 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It follows that, if the sealing between the couple is canceled, so is the sealing of the children to the couple. That's one reason why cancellations of sealings are as difficult to obtain as they are when children are involved.
I think Polyanna probably did a good job of refuting the above. However, I want to be certain.
Even after a sealing cancellation children sealed to parents who were sealed continue to be sealed to those parents. Therefore this is not the reason sealing cancellations are hard to get.
They are hard to get because they deprive the other person of the associate blessings of having been sealed.
Although the Church is often viewed as sexist in it's patriarchal ways this policy is in direct opposition to such a notion.
Men can not get sealing cancellations - not because they don't need them (since they may be sealed to more than one woman), but because doing so would cut the blessings for the wife.
It being harder for a woman to re-marry this would be unfair.
However, most of the time a sister seeking a cancellation so that she may be sealed to another will have her request granted. The thinking being that the man can find another wife to be sealed to.
On another note, there are instances where the First Presidency have cancelled sealings to parents.
quote:Quark... is it your impression that I disagree with you, or are you answering another question/comment?
No, not at all. The quotes are things I thought people would find interesting on the subject, but had little to do with MiraclesHappen's original question. I am concerned that some of his/her remarks were almost desperate for answers that were not coming and I was trying to find him/her something that would help with whatever the unspoken concern was.
It is my opinion that those of you who are born under the covenant often do not truly realize what a tremendous blessing it is that you have been given that those of us who are not will never realize. At least in this life. For example, I see many who complain about "celebrating pioneers" in the church, when one of the reasons we celebrate such is because of the sealing covenant. One should not feel like, or be made to feel like, they "have to apologize" for being proud to be a multi-generational member of the church. When you said that the worthiness of parents had nothing to do with blessings of the children, I wanted to point out that the sealing covenants certainly don't indicate that. That many blessings are promised to those who worthily keep their covenants, and those blessings do affect their children in immediate, real, and very profound ways.
But as Elder Ballard indicated, along with those blessings come certain obligations. The sealing covenant is so very complicated, and yet so very simple that many of us usually either ignore it or take it for granted. D&C section 128 verse 18 is one of the longest verses of scripture. Part of it says:
quote: And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.
The reason "those things" can be revealed to babes is because of the welding link of the sealing power that has been restored in our times.
I simply didn't want to let MH think that some of the things you (and others) were saying were just your opinions, but could be backed up.
When I first read MH's question, "What does born under the covenant mean," I was struck with the fact of what a tremendously profound question that truly was.
This is why I mostly lurk. I don't understand all the nuances of this. Sorry, my fault.
quote: On another note, there are instances where the First Presidency have cancelled sealings to parents.
If you are correct, I imagine this is extremely rare.
posted
Eventually, everyone who goes to the celestial kingdom will have a parental sealing, though not all of them will be biological.
Isaiah 54:1
quote:Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.
[ November 21, 2007, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Jason ]
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: but because doing so would cut the blessings for the wife.
sorry for the derail... however Andrew, this makes a lot of sense to me... but I have never seen any kind of reference for this idea and was unable to locate one in a search just now.
The reason I would like to read more about this is that I have a family member, that I care very deeply about that left the church some years ago... because of feelings connected to misunderstanding this idea... could you help me with a quote I could share with him??? My relative and his second wife were upset that he was required to remain "sealed" to two women... He applied for a cancellation from his first wife, who during the process of his applying for that cancellation passed away (she had cancer), but he says that he was simply told that a cancelation was unnecessary and would not be granted.
I suspect that there was more to the communication, but he simply didn't understand... Since in their eyes they didn't get a sealing cancellation the way they wanted, it was done wrong. I am not sure it would help, but it probably wouldn't hurt to see something like this idea in writing.
FWIW, the first wife, to my knowledge never did anything to invalidate her covenants. It appears from the outside (of course I am not privy to all the facts...) that the marriage simply could not survive the stresses of 3 bouts with cancer, and 3 stillborn children... Personally I think it would be less than fair to a woman who had done her best in this life to have her sealing cancelled, after her death... especially... but "transfering" those blessings to another person for eternity makes a very comforting kind of sense to me...
I know that however our temple blessings are fulfilled (in accordance to our worthiness...) for the parties involved in the next life will be absolutely correct... The Father will see to it in perfect fairness and honor. We know that our JOY will be "full". That indicates to me that there will be NO unresolved issues, lingering... like so many of us have in this life... Nevertheless, I think I myself better work on any remaining issues that I can't find resolution for now... I personally believe I need to work on acceptance of unanswered questions, at the very least. To me that just makes sense.
quote: but because doing so would cut the blessings for the wife.
This is what my bishop explained to me when I was divorced 19 years ago. I had gone to him to talk about a sealing cancellation because my ex was trying to use the temple to weald power over me. He kept telling me that it didn't matter that we were divorced, that we were sealed in the temple and I "belonged" to him forever and there was nothing I could do about it.
My bishop explained that cancelling the sealing was not in my best interest, because part of the sealing, in addition to being "sealed" to the other person, is the bestowing of great individual blessings. If the sealing were cancelled, all of those blessings would be cancelled also. That, he explained, is why sealings are not cancelled until there is another temple marriage "waiting in the wings." (He also assured me that I was not "stuck" with the guy I was sealed to [which is a pretty ridiculous notion anyway, since he had been excommunicated and our sealing was suspended] and that the Lord would take care of my sealing situation, whether in this life or the next.)
Incidentally, my oldest two children were born in the covenant, but my younger two, same two parents, were not. My ex was excommunicated while I was pregnant with #3 and our sealing was suspended. Our plan at the time was to straighten out his life and get to the temple and have the younger two sealed to us. Ex couldn't (or wouldn't) do it, and we ended up divorced instead. But I don't worry about my kids -- I just live the commandments the best I can and feel assured that the Lord will take care of all of us.
Meanwhile, I've been single and just doing the best I can for almost 20 years. When hope appears to be fading, I just remember all those great guys who died in all those wars without ever having the opportunity to be married, and I remind myself that eternity is a l-o-n-g time. Oops... now I'm rambling sorry...
Posts: 1330 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: My bishop explained that cancelling the sealing was not in my best interest, because part of the sealing, in addition to being "sealed" to the other person, is the bestowing of great individual blessings. If the sealing were cancelled, all of those blessings would be cancelled also. That, he explained, is why sealings are not cancelled until there is another temple marriage "waiting in the wings
That makes sense to me. If someone who was sealed is excommunicated, but then repents, as I did, the the temple blessings can be restored. In my case, my ex-husband moved on with his life, out of the Church, though he's never been excommunicated, and is still on the rolls of the Church. He's been married twice since our divorce, and his third marriage has lasted more than twice as long as ours did. It's taken me a long time to come to grips with the idea that I might still be sealed to him. If he repents and comes back to the Church someday, and his wife joins the Church and is worthy, would he be able to be sealed to his wife, while I'm still alive? This is where it gets confusing for me.
As for the individual blessings, I have come to realize that my covenant is with Heavenly Father and Jesus, and my blessings come from them, even if I stay single the rest of my life.
Posts: 1305 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
sorry...
