posted
The LDS perspective would be that your son existed before he was born, and you don't automatically have a right to him just because you helped call him into this world. If you didn't accept proxy ordinances, were unrighteous, etc., your son would be taken away and sealed to another.
Edited to add: God is loving. That's kind of a last-resort kind of situation.
posted
Exactly. The point would be that your son not be denied sealing to parents just because you rejected it.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The LDS perspective would be that your son existed before he was born, and you don't automatically have a right to him just because you helped call him into this world.
I guess that is where I am confused. What is "having a right to him" entail? I don't know what that means. Calling a rose by any other name does not change the smell of it. I guess I don't understand the Mormon premise of what actually changes. What is the defined, quantitative aspect of being sealed. What rights change if my son is or is not sealed to me.
It sounds like just bragging rights.
"Yeah, he is my son." "No he is not, you are not sealed." "Oh...umm..ok. He is not my son."
So what changes besides the title?
I am not trying to be rude. I know that is how I am coming across. I am just trying to understand the big dilemma for kids unsure of which dad they are going to be sealed to.
I guess I can't understand the answer outside of the faith and should just leave it at that.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the premise we're going from is that you want your kids to be with you, to have a continued relationship in the afterlife. If you aren't sealed, you may be separated and never see each other, never get to continue that relationship. I mean, it's not automatic you'd get separated, either, and we don't really have too many details on exactly how the system works, but we do know that those who are sealed, if they are righteous, will be together and get to continue their association and loving family life.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh...so it is a matter of proximity? If you are sealed, you are close enough to visit and have a relationship? If you are not sealed, then they are too far away to enjoy a relationship?
That makes sense in an odd way. Children leave anyway. It must be important for visiting rights for children and proximity for spouses.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
sealings, in relation to parent-child is much more difficult to explain that sealings to husband-wife. once you understand the difference between the husband-wife sealing, the parent-child begins to mean something.
the short explanation of a husband-wife: traditionally, you marry in the courthouse (or in many churches) "till death do you part." however, a person who has authority from god (sealing power) can marry and seal you for "time and all eternity." meaning, you have the blessing of a spouse for all time, and all the blessings that come with being married.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It IS church policy that a woman can only be sealed to one man, living or dead.
This is not true. Sisters can be sealed by proxy to every man they were legally married to in life, even if the marriage ended in divorce. And I've known two women who were sealed to more than one man in life.
One was a young widow who was married in the temple. She had two children by first hubby. Several years later, she was sealed in the temple (I was there, this was not a "for time only" marriage), and had two more children with hubby #2.
The other was not a member when her first husband died. She remarried a member, and after a time she was baptised and they went to the temple. She was sealed to both of her husbands on the same day. Hubby #2 was proxy for hubby #1. She had children with both men. This took place in the early 1970's, so it's not especially new.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about this subject. My understanding is what has been mentioned before... the ordinance is so important that no one should be left out and it will be sorted out later.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
lem, I have faith in the doctrine of sealing, though I don't fully understand it myself. I figure we don't know much about the next life, only what is necessary for us to know in order to be happiest there. But I do have an imagination. Here are some thoughts.
I don't imagine proximity will be so much an issue. I imagine "distance" and "time" may have little meaning in the next life. On the other hand, the ties that bind us here on earth may not endure in quite the way we might think. How long do we live on this earth? 100 years if we are lucky? How long is an eternity? How much will the parent-child relationship matter 1,000,000,000 years from now? Do you think you will really care that much then that your sperm contributed to the genetic make-up of your current son? Let's say you might care for the first 10,000 years. Then the familial bonds of mortality will seem nothing but a faint dream. Why would such a faint dream still hold any meaning for you? After that you may just consider him a friend as any other friend you may happen to have as family bonds will have little meaning. This is assuming the passing of time will even hold meaning then.
Now on the other hand, take the LDS doctrine of sealing family relationships. What does that mean exactly? Well, it seems that there is a special feeling and bonding that happen when your child has children. We believe that (as was said) sealed parents will continue to have children--spirit children--that will later inhabit mortal worlds not yet created and go on to become immortal also. Those unsealed will not procreate at all. There may be a special continuing bond of emotion present when your child is having children into the eternities. How could we even begin to understand such a thing now?
But this is only speculation arrived at based on how I understand the doctrine and my own imagination.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is the purpose of marriage? A marriage is just a relationship-a relationship that is voluntarily agreed upon (hopefully) by both parties. The ceremony is just a certificate that makes it socially acceptable and gives tax breaks.
The purpose of marriage for a Latter-day Saint is more than an Earthly relationship. It has eternal ramifications that can effect uncounted billions of trillions of individuals if you can imagine infinity at all. The word "Sealed" means a close uniting that is not easy to break. In fact, the only one who can make or break the family relationship is God. It is true that Latter-day Saints believe that an earthly marriage is an agreed upon certificate (although necessary as LDS believe that God respects covenants of any kind more than He does simple nods of the head that offer no lasting commitment). However, as soon as Latter-day Saints in good standing with the Church enter into a marriage and family Covenant in the Temples, it goes far beyond a simple agreement of a mutual relationship. It becomes a binding force with very huge potential and equally as serious consiquences.
quote:What does a "Sealing" do that 2 individuals with free will can't do on their own? Are there eternal tax breaks?
It allows the couple to become a member of the Family of God. For a Latter-day Saint, there is a belief that we all were with Heavenly Father as His Children as Spirits. After the Fall of Adam and Eve, that allowed mortality to exist in the first place (a good thing as there was no way they could ever have children because of their innocent natures), we were able to gain mortal bodies that would allow us to progress from what we were as spirit personalities.
However, the downside is that we lost our original connection to God and thus fell along with Adam and Eve. This means we were no longer part of the Family of God and have had to start from scratch, if you will, in gaining our previous position. The upside of this loss is that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the properties of mortality (whatever that means), we will be allowed to become GREATER than we were before losing that connection with God.
And that is where the "sealing" of husband and wife and children become important. Through LDS Temple ordinances done by those who are given the Priesthood of God (i.e. the power to act in God's name), we are reconnected to not only our spouses and children, but to the whole Household of God as we once were. On top of that, because we form our own family units than we may someday realize what God already is -- Kings and Queens, Mothers and Fathers, Eternal Families. Our Eternal Parents, through Temple ordinances, gives us the chance to follow after Them.
quote:I have a son who is quite young. If I die and don't have temple work done for me, and if I choose not to accept a proxy sealing, how does he NOT become my son in the afterlife?
From an LDS point of view, there really isn't an absolute answer to this question. How much of a relationship will still exist for those not sealed has not been expounded. For all we know he might be emotionally and sentimentally your son. But, that is as far as the bond will go. You and your son will have no increase; no way of going beyond a certain point of growth.
This goes for even those LDS who go to the Temple, but do not get sealed to a spouse through their personal choices. They may get to Heaven, but that is the end of their progress. For all practical purposes they become angels -- servants to those who chose the Higher Path of Eternal Marriage.
quote:So what changes besides the title?
To put it simply; your bonded relationship to God and the ability to follow after God's footsteps.
posted
I looked it up to make sure. The official word is that a woman may be sealed to only one husband while she is living (unless her previous sealing ordinance is first canceled). She may remarry, even in the Temple, but it will be for time only.
A man may be sealed to more than one wife while he is living. Like for instance if he is a widower and marries another woman in the Temple. Both his sealings will be valid.
I know that this hardly seems fair to some folks. But I can safely vouch for my wife and many other women I know, that they do not have a problem with this. They understand that it is not something they are going to have to worry about until we all go to that great Homemaking Meeting in the sky. (Especially since polygamy has been discontinued. Yeah!) And they are confident that God knows what he is doing and that it will all work out for our good and His name’s glory.
I, on the other hand, DO have a problem with it. I’ve never had any particular desire to have more than one wife. Like a friend put it, "That’s just what I need! TWO women telling me how to drive!" (Hey, my friend said it not me. Get on his case.)
Oh well, I guess I will just have to develop the same level of faith that the women folk have - that it’s all going to work out all right, that we really can live happily ever after.
At any rate, if we are taking about the dead, the guidelines for performing, by proxy, the sealing ordinances for deceased relatives is slightly different. Both women and men are to be sealed to each husband or wife to whom they were legally married. Of course, then the question arises as to which one she will be married to in the eternities. To which I answer, "I don’t care. It’s not my call to make."
Katharina used a phrase that, I think, is one key to understanding this subject and not getting bogged down with too much ulcer causing minutia. She said that GOD WILL SORT THINGS OUT.
The guideline used to be different. It used to be that even in vicarious ordinances for the dead we could seal a woman to only one husband. Growing up I remember many a family get together in which there was much discussion about who ought to be sealed to whom. A typical discussion would be variations on the following theme:
Aunt Matilda was sealed in the Temple to Uncle Frank. But he turned out to be a drunken bum who abused his wife and kids. Then he died, thank goodness, and Matilda remarried to a really good man, Erving, but she can’t be sealed to him. (Or in another variation, they were not members of the church. So now there are the plans to do their Temple ordinances by proxy. So we have to make a judgment call about Frank since she couldn’t be sealed to both.)
It gets worse. It was also common practice to NOT do the Temple work for someone who killed themselves. And we also used to agonize over just which set of parents to seal the children to.
As if we were qualified to judge any of the above. It always seemed pointless to me to worry about it. It doesn’t matter who is sealed to whom. What matters is that the ordinances be performed for each person and then the promises connected to those ordinances are assured.
Fortunately the Church changed the guideline to be in better accord with the doctrine that God is the only one qualified to judge. Now the guidelines are basically that we seal them all, and let God be the judge of who is finally going to be sealed to whom in the hereafter and which ordinances are going to be valid. And no, the new guidelines do not imply that there will be polyandry in the hereafter. There is no justification for that notion. It just means that God will sort it out.
But then it has always been clear to those who understood the doctrine, even back with the old guidelines, that 1) Any ordinance we perform on earth has got to also have God’s seal of approval, or it is null and void anyway. (Our scriptures call it “being sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.”) And 2) No one is going to be held accountable, and therefore lose their salvation, for things that they genuinely had no control over - things like ordinances that were impossible for them to do in this life. 3) No one will be forced to be married to someone unsuitable for them. And 4) God is going to sort it all out and we need to trust that He knows what He is doing.
And to inject another bit of perspective. It used to irk me a little, in those above mentioned family get togethers. that some folks seemed to be so worried about who to seal the children to. For sure, it is really important who raises the children here on earth. Ideally you don’t want some nut-ball like Uncle Frank to raise the kids. So you try to pick your spouse wisely.
But in the hereafter, among those who go to heaven, inherit eternal life, become joint-heirs with Christ, inherit the Celestial Kingdom, or whatever phrase you want to use. As I say, among those who go to heaven, what does it matter? Sure, we teach that families can be forever. But that doesn’t mean we will be living with our children there in the same mansion, as it were.. Heaven, as we see it, is a kingdom of married couples. Our children will be grownups with their own spouses and households.
Our pattern here has some similarities to the pattern that will exist there. Here our children grow up to adulthood, leave home (please let it happen soon!), get married, and establish their own households. (If we are lucky it won’t be next door.)
Yes, he is my son. And I love him dearly. But I don’t have, and don’t want to have, a lot of say so in how he runs his household. It is nice to be able to associate with him and his wife as our equals. It is fun to be able to have dinners together and do stuff together. It is nice when he thinks I finally got smart after he turned 25. But he is an adult, he is his own man and so is his wife (except that, she is her own woman). But it is also nice that he has his own household.
What I am saying is that I will be able to freely associate with him there regardless of which set of parents he is sealed too. The phrase “families can be forever” is used a lot in our culture. But I’ve often mused that it follows that friendships can be forever too. The ultimate goal of this sealing work is the linking together of the decedents of Adam and Eve, who become saved in Christ, into one family network by sealing husbands and wives together, and parents to children. The ordinance of sealing children to parents is a promise that a person will have eternal parents; a promise that one will have a place in the network. It does not guarantee WHERE on the organizational chart he is going to be. And of course, like any covenant, the promises are dependent on whether or not we live up to our end of the bargain. At any rate, I do not believe that our place in the network is going limit us in any way as to who we can associate with there. We will all be joint-heirs with Christ.
Now, some people may think it’s kind of strange, this whole business of baptism for the dead and sealing ordinances for the dead. Strange or not, you’d think, in a country where the institution of marriage and family is increasingly reviled against, some folks ought to be glad that there is at least one group around that reveres it enough to want the institution to continue for eternity.
But I can see where our talk of vicarious ordinances for the dead might conjure up images of us figuratively dragging our relatives, kicking and screaming, to the baptismal font and then to the altar and forcing, say, Aunt Matilda to marry Uncle Frank all over again. Well, it isn’t that way at all because free will is sacred to God. Everyone is free to accept or reject any ordinance that is done on their behalf.
One way to look at it is this: Suppose that a rich friend pays for tickets for you to a great Broadway show you’ve been wanting to see. He tells you that the tickets will be waiting for you at the box office and all you have to do is go enjoy the show. And by the way, he says, the tickets also admit you into an exclusive fancy reception afterward.
Now, you have a choice to make. You can go to the Broadway show, or you can stay home and watch Regis and Kathy Lee reruns on TV. But the choice is yours. Basically the tickets become null and void, as though they never existed, if you don’t redeem them. And you will have no one to blame but yourself. You certainly can’t blame your friend.
But then, this concept should not seem strange to my fellow Christians. After all, one of the foundations of Christianity is the idea of vicarious work for the dead. Didn’t Christ do something for all people - those who had died, those who were then alive, and those who were yet to be born - something that they could not do for themselves?
If Christ is then going to require a person to hear his message and be baptized, it would follow that he would provide a way for everyone to hear his message and be baptized, and to fulfill any other requirement. It is not a question of whether or not he requires some act on our part. That is also a basic tenant of Christianity. He does require us to do something. I say that because, even the act of accepting him as our Savior is a voluntary, conscious act of will.
So the question is - just what does he require of us? I’m a lot more comfortable with our view of it because I like answers, and I like justice. Sure, I would like to believe that all I have to do is accept him and then everything will be hunky dory. But the problem is that the folks who have preached that for all these centuries have never come up with a reasonable explanation to show how God is just and merciful at the same time. Indeed, they have instead consigned millions of people to hell for no other fault than that those people were born under circumstances that prevented them from hearing about Christ. And by so doing, those preachers have put the hopelessness and sting back into death despite anything Paul said about Christ’s victory. Therefore I’m forced to consider those preachers clueless and therefore I’m not required to take them seriously.
I like our explanation better.
I know that the original question of this thread was about the sealing of husband and wife. But I think it is easier to understand that part of it if one understands the bigger picture. More on the subject can be found in The Doctrine and Covenants sections: 110, 128, 130, 131, 132, 137, and 138.
Sam
[ December 01, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: Samuel Bush ]
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know that this hardly seems fair to some folks. But I can safely vouch for my wife and many other women I know, that they do not have a problem with this. They understand that it is not something they are going to have to worry about until we all go to that great Homemaking Meeting in the sky. (Especially since polygamy has been discontinued. Yeah!) And they are confident that God knows what he is doing and that it will all work out for our good and His name’s glory.
I, on the other hand, DO have a problem with it. I’ve never had any particular desire to have more than one wife. Like a friend put it, "That’s just what I need! TWO women telling me how to drive!" (Hey, my friend said it not me. Get on his case.)
You post was mostly fine, Sam, but I don't like the above two paragraphs.
If there is a fair and spiritual reason for the way things are (and I do believe there is), there simply has to be a way to justify it without narrow stereotypes and sexist jokes.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, I apologize for the lame joke in that second paragraph. You would have to have been there when my friend said that. It’s not nearly as funny here as it was then. Oh well, I tend to be flippant and it sometimes backfires on me. Sorry.
As for the first paragraph, I really am glad I live now and not back when some of my ancestors had more than one wife. And the women folk I mentioned really do have strong faith that everything is going to work out for the best even though none of us really know how it will all play out.
I enjoyed your posts. I assure you that I take this subject very seriously.
[ December 01, 2004, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Samuel Bush ]
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand. I didn't mean to jump on you. The serious answer as to why things are the way they are is that that's the way the Lord made it, that's fairly bald. It also has to do with politics between women and men, and people tend to make jokes. I don't like that, though.
I do think that sometimes simply saying "It doesn't bother me." doesn't help when someone has a concern, because there could be a lot of reasons it doesn't bother someone. I've had questions before, and the most common response I got when I polled friends and family was "That's never bothered me, and it shouldn't bother you." It was distinctly not helpful - not only did it not answer my question (or else they tried to answer it with layman sociology rather than a spiritual answer), but it made me feel more like a stranger for having the question in the first place.
I'm not trying to harp on you, I promise. I think that sometimes people have questions and I'm trying to figure out how I wish mine had been answered. Saying "I wouldn't want things to be equal anyway." never helped, but "There is no way the Lord would create a system that was ultimately unfair, so there must be a reason for it." is better.
The first response made me want to say, "You like being relegated to the short end of the stick? What color is the sky in your world?" The second feels more true. If this isn't the Lord's work, then there is no justification. Since it is, then everything will work out. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I feel the same as katharina. The one thing I'm sure of is that things are fair in heaven. The answer "they wouldn't want that anyway" is one that has been extremely common here on earth throughout history as a reply to why discrimination of all sorts exists. Also the joking response is quite common.
Samuel, I loved your post, and you know that I joined the church after long discussions about this and everything else with both you and your wife. You are a one of my mentors, and the light that you carry is one of the lights that led me to the church. Please understand, though, that these are serious concerns, and not something to be dismissed with a laugh and a wave.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have posted this sooner but I was at the oral surgeon. I am happy to be able to report that they were able to remove the foot okay, and the prognosis is good of my mouth healing up nicely. Unfortunately, my shoe is a goner.
Katharina, you’re right. An answer like “It doesn’t bother me so it shouldn’t bother you” is, at best, a non-answer and, at worst . . . well, the FCC won’t let me say what it is at worst. If I came across like that, I deserve to have someone “harp” at me.
Titiana, if I implied that phrase, then I deserve to take lumps, and I am way sorry, and I sure didn’t mean it that way. I’m referring to that phrase, “They wouldn’t want it that way.” It is a disgusting excuse for an answer. You’re right, it has been used throughout history. It was a common song and dance that good ol’ slave holders used to justify their horrible abuses. They’d argue that the slaves were happier in bondage. It’s enough to make you want to hurl.
I’ve gone back and more carefully reread this thread. I find I enjoyed the posts even more the second and third time through, and that probably I ought not try to be flip during a serious discussion. But I would like to say one thing in my own defense. That first paragraph of mine about how some of the women I know feel about the subject, well, I was being serious. I was responding to JonnyNotSoBravo. He said, “It seems a very obvious double standard and I wonder how the women in the Mormon community feel about it...” I should have mentioned that that is what I was answering.
As for that crack about my friend and the driving, yes, that was a sexist joke. But I meant it in the nicest possible way.
So I will be totally serious. When I said in my post that I looked it up, I mean I looked it up in The Handbook and it says what I paraphrased in my first two paragraphs. It also gives the procedure for bishops and stake presidents to follow in requesting the cancellation of sealings. That policy has not changed for at least as long as I’ve been alive, nor has the doctrine changed.
What has changed. though, is some of the procedures for doing vicarious ordinances FOR THE DEAD. Now we seal a women to all of the husbands she was legally married to. We used to seal her only to the first husband and let it go at that. Although one could seal her to a husband other than the first one, but it required special permission. The way we do it now is a lot easier.
In connection with the idea that God will sort things out. There is a phrase I often hear that makes me cringe. The phrase is “She will be given to another.” or any variation of it that phrase. It just does not ring true to me. Free will is sacred. I can kind of envision people striking up friendships and courting there much like we do here, maybe. Only I can’t imagine there being the nagging worry, like we have here, that we might choose unwisely and marry a lemon. But this is just my opinion. I have no scriptural backing except the “free will” thing.
I try to empathize with other folks whose situation is different than mine. Here we have a church whose doctrine clearly states that people must be married in the temple for time and eternity or they cannot inherit the highest reward in heaven (D&C 131); a church which reveres big families; and holds the whole package up as a shining “ideal” complete with lots and lots of testimonials on how blessed and wonderful temple marriage and parenthood are. (And they are, don’t get me wrong, but still . . .) And then all too often gears a lot of it’s programs and activities with the “ideal” in mind. You even sometimes hear some smart alecy comment (often attributed to Brigham Young) like, “If a young man is 19 and unmarried he is a menace to society.” (Ha ha, very funny. But what about my friend Russ who is middle aged, never been married, and is a totally nice guy?)
But that is what it is: an “ideal.” The reality is that the situation most, if not all, of us find ourselves in does not perfectly match the ideal to some degree or an other. There is a whole bunch of different situations we find ourselves in such as (and I’m not making a judgment call here as to good or bad, just stating things as they are) : 1) single; 2) single parent; 3) married but the only member in the family who has joined the Church; 4) married in the temple and raising a pretty good bunch of kids, more or less, but still with plenty of feelings of inadequacy; etc., etc., (In fact I tend to steer clear of people who don’t have feelings of inadequacy. I’m afraid there might be a fanatic lurking underneath that facade.)
I can understand how perceptions of second-class citizenship might happen - both self perception and the worry that that is how others in the church perceive us. That is where an understanding of the Atonement and of the ultimate fairness of God gives us hope.
(Now, obviously I can’t really know first-hand how other people feel about this. After all, I’ve been married two thirds of my life so far. I got married 4 months after I finished my missionary service. I really don’t know what it is like being a single adult in the church. But I may get an inkling of it every year when my company throws a big employee appreciation breakfast for us - well some of us, anyway. Because they pretty much ignore those working rotating shift. The one fifth of us working day shift that day get grub. The rest of us who have days off or are working graveyard shift are just out of luck. Now, I’m a big boy and I can get my own breakfast, but it still rankles sometimes. Maybe they should call it the “employee slap-in-the-face breakfast.” Or better yet, how about we shift workers just shut the power plant down between the hours of 4 pm and 6am. How do you like them apples, Boss Man. Maybe you will start appreciating us now, while you sit there freezing in the dark! . . . Oh well, the breakfast thing is just a minor annoyance, but I think I understand, to a tiny degree, how some in the church might feel about the subject of this thread.)
Below are references to four talks and articles which say it so much better than I could. One of the things about Christ’s Atonement is that it not only covers sins but also a whole bunch of bad things that happen to us that are not sins. Such as injustices done to us by other people; dumb mistakes we make; and even nasty life circumstances (like sickness) that happen through nobody’s fault but are just common to the human condition - to name just a few. And this is why we can say that he is fair and merciful: because he understands what we are going through. And all the injustices and adversities we suffer now, and any joys and blessing we lose out on here, will be more than compensated to us. If not here then in the life to come.
In one of the talks, Spencer J. Condie says the following:
“The purpose of the Fall is succinctly summarized by Lehi: ‘Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy’ (2 Ne. 2:25). Much of this joy is found in our posterity. Further, modern prophets have borne witness that in God’s divine justice and mercy, those who live worthy lives and who are denied the blessings of parenthood on earth will receive eternal compensation, and no blessings of exaltation will be lost if they remain true and faithful (see Harold B. Lee, Ye Are the Light of the World, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974, p. 292; Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., 5 vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957–66, 2:36).”
It is a gospel of hope. And whatever wonders I can imagine about Heaven, they must fall short of the actuality. I love what Paul said in 1 Cor 2:9, “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”
Well, I’ve said enough. These articles are excellent. (If the URLs don’t work, go to lds.org and click on “Gospel Library” then “Church Publications - HTML (text)” then “Magazines” then “Ensign” and find the year and month.)
Sam
“Beauty for Ashes: The Atonement of Jesus Christ,” by Bruce C. Hafen Ensign, Apr. 1990
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
