Excommunication/sealing question.

[UtahDan]

Check my thinking on something. When a person is excommunicated they lose the benefit of their temple covenants, including the sealing to their spouse and children.

Assuming the person is eventually rebaptized, they would have to be resealed not only to their spouse but also to their children. If for some reason the adult children didn't want to be resealed to their parents they would not have to would they? In other words, a child born in he covenant, when that covenant is nullified, doesn't automatically come back within it when the covenant is remade do they?

[PaloAltoCougar]

Check my thinking on something. When a person is excommunicated they lose the benefit of their temple covenants, including the sealing to their spouse and children.

Assuming the person is eventually rebaptized, they would have to be resealed not only to their spouse but also to their children. If for some reason the adult children didn't want to be resealed to their parents they would not have to would they? In other words, a child born in he covenant, when that covenant is nullified, doesn't automatically come back within it when the covenant is remade do they?

It's my understanding that following the rebaptism, and assuming the person has been interviewed and cleared by an appropriate authority, as part of the confirmation the person's "blessings are restored." Unlike baptism and confimation, the endowment and sealing ordinances aren't actually performed. Rather all previous ordinances are simply reinstated. But even if my understanding is correct, it raises the question whether one could "opt out" of certain preexisting sealings; i.e., "Elder XXX, could you include a carve-out for the sealing to __________? Such a jerk."

I've always been of a mind that, in the eternities, if one doesn't want to be sealed to someone, one won't be, notwithstanding the fact the ordinance may have been performed.

[YOhio]

I could be wrong, but I believe that at some point after an excommunicated member is rebaptized then they have their temple covenants restored through a blessing by the SP. They don't have to repeat the endowment and sealing process.

[UtahDan]

Thanks for the clarification.

[wuapinmon]

I could be wrong, but I believe that at some point after an excommunicated member is rebaptized then they have their temple covenants restored through a blessing by the SP. They don't have to repeat the endowment and sealing process.

I am fairly certain that YOhio is correct.

[Tex]

YOhio is right. The act of restoring blessings is a formal priesthood ordinance performed by the stake president or a general authority. First Presidency approval is required, and it cannot take place sooner than one year after rebaptism. Brethren who held the priesthood are restored to their former office (elder, high priest, seventy, etc).

I was just talking with someone about the sealing question ... especially in the cases of civil divorce where the couple is legally not married but still sealed. The reason why the church almost never cancels a sealing after a civil divorce is that it is more important that one has the sealing than who the sealing is to. Similarly, children who are born in the covenant (or sealed to their parents) remain so, even if their parents' sealing is canceled or revoked by excommunication.

I think the principle that the Lord will not "force" you to be with someone you don't want to be (i.e., former spouse) is a sound one.

[TripletDaddy]

YOhio is right. The act of restoring blessings is a formal priesthood ordinance performed by the stake president or a general authority. First Presidency approval is required, and it cannot take place sooner than one year after rebaptism. Brethren who held the priesthood are restored to their former office (elder, high priest, seventy, etc).

I was just talking with someone about the sealing question ... especially in the cases of civil divorce where the couple is legally not married but still sealed. The reason why the church almost never cancels a sealing after a civil divorce is that it is more important that one has the sealing than who the sealing is to. Similarly, children who are born in the covenant (or sealed to their parents) remain so, even if their parents' sealing is canceled or revoked by excommunication.

Thanks for clarifying that, Tex. Esp the second point about the childrens' sealing. It is good to see you posting here at what is becoming almost a daily rate. Keep it coming!

[UtahDan]

Similarly, children who are born in the covenant (or sealed to their parents) remain so, even if their parents' sealing is canceled or revoked by excommunication.

I think the principle that the Lord will not "force" you to be with someone you don't want to be (i.e., former spouse) is a sound one.

I am thinking of this more in the context of a parent who has done something grievous and an adult child not any longer wanting to be sealed to them as a result.

[Surfah]

I am thinking of this more in the context of a parent who has done something grievous and an adult child not any longer wanting to be sealed to them as a result.

I am not aware of any emancipation like that in the Church.

[TripletDaddy]

I am thinking of this more in the context of a parent who has done something grievous and an adult child not any longer wanting to be sealed to them as a result.

Could it be argued that sealing small children to parents before the age of accountability is akin to paedobaptism...in that these ordinances are unnecessary and almost improper before a child reaches the age of 8? Wouldn't the same arguments we use against baptizing infants be applicable to sealing small children before they are 8?

[scottie]

I am thinking of this more in the context of a parent who has done something grievous and an adult child not any longer wanting to be sealed to them as a result.

How sad.

[KillerDog]

Could it be argued that sealing small children to parents before the age of accountability is akin to paedobaptism...in that these ordinances are unnecessary and almost improper before a child reaches the age of 8? Wouldn't the same arguments we use against baptizing infants be applicable to sealing small children before they are 8?

I don't think being bic has the same contractual effect as baptism. IOW, I don't think there are any committments that the child needs to keep because they are bic which they may not understand and no cleansing of a pure vessel occurs at sealing like at baptism. Thus, no mockery and no covenants before their time.

[Surfah]

How sad.

That would be sad. My grandfather has been ex'd twice. And despite the heartache of all that I know my father for one wouldn't ever want that.

[TripletDaddy]

I don't think being bic has the same contractual effect as baptism. IOW, I don't think there are any committments that the child needs to keep because they are bic which they may not understand and no cleansing of a pure vessel occurs at sealing like at baptism. Thus, no mockery and no covenants before their time.

Ah, good point. That makes sense to me.

As an extension of the question, at what age to children get sealed to parents when we are talking about converts and the children are not BIC?

I am thinking of UDs hypo....let's say a family has children that are BIC. The dad engages in horrible acts against his children. Eventually he is excommunicated. Later, he is reinstated and his blessing restored. Shouldn't the now-older children have the right to say...."whoa, no thanks. I don't want to be sealed to you anymore."

[Coach McGuirk]

Could it be argued that sealing small children to parents before the age of accountability is akin to paedobaptism...in that these ordinances are unnecessary and almost improper before a child reaches the age of 8? Wouldn't the same arguments we use against baptizing infants be applicable to sealing small children before they are 8?

That is a great question. For children born into the covenant, There is no act preformed so what decision is to be made really? But in my case, we have been sealed to each upon finalization of the adoption. The children have not pledged a covenant of their own at this point. Am I wrong?