Excommunication/sealing question.

[UtahDan]

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.

But you could imagine circumstances where one might. Hypothetically parent sexually molests one of your children. Or they shed innocent blood. Of course, I'm not sure you get rebaptized if you do either of those things.

[TripletDaddy]

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?

This is more what I was asking. I appreciate K-Dog's distinction with kids that are BIC. But they are not really "sealed" via direct ordinance. They get grandfathered in, so to speak.

I am talking about kids and parents that are actually sealed via ordinance at the temple. Is there a minimum age for that? I honestly don't know.

[Surfah]

This is more what I was asking. I appreciate K-Dog's distinction with kids that are BIC. But they are not really "sealed" via direct ordinance. They get grandfathered in, so to speak.

I am talking about kids and parents that are actually sealed via ordinance at the temple. Is there a minimum age for that? I honestly don't know.

No minimum age at all. Our daughter was sealed to us when she was about 18 months old. A matron held her next to us at the altar during the performing of the ordinance.

[Coach McGuirk]

This is more what I was asking. I appreciate K-Dog's distinction with kids that are BIC. But they are not really "sealed" via direct ordinance. They get grandfathered in, so to speak.

I am talking about kids and parents that are actually sealed via ordinance at the temple. Is there a minimum age for that? I honestly don't know.

The only minimum age I am aware of is the adoption has to be finalized. This happens at no earlier than 6 months.

[KillerDog]

This is more what I was asking. I appreciate K-Dog's distinction with kids that are BIC. But they are not really "sealed" via direct ordinance. They get grandfathered in, so to speak.

I am talking about kids and parents that are actually sealed via ordinance at the temple. Is there a minimum age for that? I honestly don't know.

There is no minimum age for the same reason a child bic does not need to go to the temple with its parents. I don't think the two are different because the child is not making any covenants when they are sealed to their parents. That's my understanding.

[Solon]

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.

Decoded: "When I was rebaptized, I just went to the SP." Nice try, YOhio. Next time, tell us about "your friend" with the meth problem. We'll try to get "your friend" some help.

[Surfah]

The only minimum age I am aware of is the adoption has to be finalized. This happens at no earlier than 6 months.

Or the child's birth parents can grant permission for the sealing to occur via letter to the temple.

I wasn't able to finalize the adoption until my daughter was 2 and a half. But she was sealed to me at 18 months because the birth father had given his consent for it to occur.

[Surfah]

There is no minimum age for the same reason a child bic does not need to go to the temple with its parents. I don't think the two are different because the child is not making any covenants when they are sealed to their parents. That's my understanding.

My understanding as well. When sealed to a spouse you enter into a covenant that is different from those of the child. I believe the child simply has the blessings of the covenant sealed upon them but are not themselves making the same covenant.

[Coach McGuirk]

Or the child's birth parents can grant permission for the sealing to occur via letter to the temple.

I wasn't able to finalize the adoption until my daughter was 2 and a half. But she was sealed to me at 18 months because the birth father had given his consent for it to occur.

Different for adoption at birth. The parents have given up their rights and while we are legal guardian of the child, the child is a ward of the state. Until the court grants us full rights as parents, the sealing can not be preformed. We can not have a court hearing till our home study is completed to see if we are fit parents. Home studies require 3 visits over 6 months, hence we can't be sealed until 6 months.

[Surfah]

Different for adoption at birth. The parents have given up their rights that while we are legal guardian of the child, the child is a ward of the state. Until the court grants us full rights as parents, the sealing can not be preformed. We can not have a court hearing till our home study is completed to see if we are fit parents. Home studies require 3 visits over 6 months, hence we can't be sealed until 6 months.

I did not know that. Makes sense though as Gidget had parental custody and rights.

[The_Tick]

My oldest was sealed to us at at the age of 5.

I have not adopted her (biological father wont sign off on it), but she has been sealed to us.

The biological father was never contacted, and didn't have to give his permission.

It is up to the discression of the Bishop and Stake President.

Our situation was this...

1. The biological father isn't listed on the birth certificate.
2. The biological father hadn't (and still hasn't to this day) made 1 child support payment.
3. The biological father had made no attempt to visit said child.

She is 16 now, and she has been to Australia 3 times to see him, but he still has never paid 1 dime of support.

When the powers that be saw those 3 points, they authorized our sealing.

It was glorious.

[Surfah]

My oldest was sealed to us at at the age of 5.

I have not adopted her (biological father wont sign off on it), but she has been sealed to us.

The biological father was never contacted, and didn't have to give his permission.

It is up to the discression of the Bishop and Stake President.

Our situation was this...

1. The biological father isn't listed on the birth certificate.
2. The biological father hadn't (and still hasn't to this day) made 1 child support payment.
3. The biological father had made no attempt to visit said child.

She is 16 now, and she has been to Australia 3 times to see him, but he still has never paid 1 dime of support.

When the powers that be saw those 3 points, they authorized our sealing.

It was glorious.

Congratulations.

Interesting though. I wonder if things have changed since because our situation was essentially identical. The temple is the one that required a consent letter from the biological father. In fact they had to have it in hand a week before the date of our sealing for her to be sealed to us. We created a few letters in fact and sent them to him with a self addressed stamped envelope to send back. Of course, he held out until the 11th hour, but we got the letter to the temple and our wedding day was doubly blessed by having her sealed to us. But I've learned to just be grateful that we were able to have that blessing. He was not easy to work with and not cooperative at all. But I realize that many others have it much worse.

[TripletDaddy]

There is no minimum age for the same reason a child bic does not need to go to the temple with its parents. I don't think the two are different because the child is not making any covenants when they are sealed to their parents. That's my understanding.

How does that differ from Catholic paedobaptism? The babies do not make express covenants, either, but are blessed and baptized. They do not agree to do anything, much like a baby being sealed.

Yet we teach in the field that the baptism of children is in the gall of bitterness because it denies the mercy of God. Couldn't the same be argued about sealing children before the age of accountability/baptism? Doesn't the same mercy that extends to unbaptized babies extend to unsealed 18 month old children?

The more I think about it, the less I understand the distinction between the two. It seems that we are basically doing the same thing by sealing little kids to parents. Why do they need it if they aren't of accountability yet? And why doesn't mercy come into effect as it does with baptism?

[TripletDaddy]

Decoded: "When I was rebaptized, I just went to the SP." Nice try, YOhio. Next time, tell us about "your friend" with the meth problem. We'll try to get "your friend" some help.

I also noticed that YOhio has "heard" of coffee enemas.

[KillerDog]

How does that differ from Catholic paedobaptism? The babies do not make express covenants, either, but are blessed and baptized. They do not agree to do anything, much like a baby being sealed.

Yet we teach in the field that the baptism of children is in the gall of bitterness because it denies the mercy of God. Couldn't the same be argued about sealing children before the age of accountability/baptism? Doesn't the same mercy that extends to unbaptized babies extend to unsealed 18 month old children?

The more I think about it, the less I understand the distinction between the two. It seems that we are basically doing the same thing by sealing little kids to parents. Why do they need it if they aren't of accountability yet? And why doesn't mercy come into effect as it does with baptism?

I think the difference lies in the purpose of the ordinance. Baptism is intended to cleanse you of sins, thus baptising a sinless individual is bad becuase it is a mockery. Sealing is intended to connect generations together so, if there is faith in Christ, they can be saved as a family. It isn't intended to cleanse.