The Law of Adoption - Sealing Men To Men

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

On a side note, do you know what one of the most out of context quotes in all of Mormonism is:

• Shortly after the Prophet Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young told of a dream in which Joseph visited and instructed him: “Joseph stepped toward us, and looking very earnestly, yet pleasantly, said: ‘Tell the people to be humble and faithful, and be sure to keep the spirit of the Lord and it will lead them right. Be careful and not turn away the small still voice; it will teach them what to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of the Kingdom. … Tell the brethren that if they will follow the spirit of the Lord, they will go right’”

The full story behind this vision and the guidance "what to do and where to go" is actually this:

• [After seeing Joseph Smith, exchanging pleasantries, and pleading to regain his sociality, Brigham Young spoke:] The brethren have a great anxiety to understand the law of adoption or sealing principles; and if you have a word of counsel for me I should be glad to receive it.

  Joseph stepped toward me, and looking very earnestly yet pleasantly said said “Tell the people to humble and faithful, and be sure to keep the spirit of the Lord and it will lead them right. Be careful and not turn away the small still voice; it will teach you ^them^ what to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of the kingdom. Tell the brethren to keep their hearts open to conviction, so that when the Holy Ghost comes to them, their hearts will be ready to receive it. They can tell the spirit of the Lord from all other spirits; it will whisper peace and joy to their souls; it will take malice hatred, strife and all evil from their hearts’ and their whole desire will be to do good, bring forth righteousness and build of the kingdom of God. Tell the brethren if they will follow the spirit of the Lord they will go right. Be sure to tell the people to keep the Spirit of the Lord; and if they will, they will find themselves just as they were organized by our Gather in Heaven before they came into the world. Our Father in Heaven organized the human family, but they are all disorganized and in great confusion.”

  Joseph then showed me the pattern, how they were in the beginning. This I cannot describe, but I saw it, and saw where the Priesthood had been taken from the earth and how it must be joined together, so that there would be a perfect chain from Father Adam to his latest posterity. Joseph again said, “Tell the people to be sure to keep the Spirit of the Lord and follow it, and it will lead them just right.”[4]

So the practice of the Law of Adoption, even though revoked by a revelation to Wilford Woodruff in 1894, here is confirmed by revelation to Brigham Young.
So I place the Law of Adoption in place with Polygamy and Consecration - a valid law revealed from God but later revoked for the time being but a valid doctrine nonetheless.  It has deeper doctrine behind it than simply sealing to our own parents vs our priesthood heads.
The Grand Council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman will include a huge adoption ceremony of some sort too.

That is all so fascinating to read. I had no idea and haven't ever read what you posted above.

What do you believe will take place at this huge adoption ceremony, JLHPROF?  Only a select few will be there, correct? Or do you believe many more will be involved?

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That is all so fascinating to read. I had no idea and haven't ever read what you posted above.

What do you believe will take place at this huge adoption ceremony, JLHPROF?  Only a select few will be there, correct? Or do you believe many more will be involved?

Joseph Smith - He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him (Adam) and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.

People think this refers to priesthood keys, but note what is delivered to Adam and then turned over to Christ.  What stewardship is turned over to Christ?
Us of course.  The human family.

My belief, and it is just my opinion (so no CFR) is that the "perfect chain from Father Adam to his latest posterity" represents a completed sealing of the human family, all dispensations sealed back to Father Adam as head of the human family.
And then that complete family (inheritance) is turned over to Christ who becomes our Father as alluded to in the book of Mormon.
And what do we call it when Christ becomes our Father - Ephesians 1:5
All dispensations will be sealed to Father Adam, and then the entire family will be sealed to Christ.

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is kind of creepy that one of our break-offs has taken what was meant to be a father-son type relationship and tried to argue that that is support of a sexually intimate union using that as a precedent.

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph Smith - He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him (Adam) and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.

People think this refers to priesthood keys, but note what is delivered to Adam and then turned over to Christ.  What stewardship is turned over to Christ?
Us of course.  The human family.

My belief, and it is just my opinion (so no CFR) is that the "perfect chain from Father Adam to his latest posterity" represents a completed sealing of the human family, all dispensations sealed back to Father Adam as head of the human family.
And then that complete family (inheritance) is turned over to Christ who becomes our Father as alluded to in the book of Mormon.
And what do we call it when Christ becomes our Father - Ephesians 1:5
All dispensations will be sealed to Father Adam, and then the entire family will be sealed to Christ.

I have not ready any of this before and it's interesting.  I know you believe in the Adam/God Doctrine, so this fits right into that, correct?

Thanks for sharing this.

[ALarson]

On 3/2/2016 at 6:18 PM, JLHPROF said:

Article also indicates that one record of John Bernheisel being adopted without a Mother participating is considered an anomaly, not the norm.

In reading more about this, I wonder who John Bernheisel is now sealed to (Mother), do you know?  I'll try to look on familysearch.org for his records too.

Also, in the link that was given earlier in the thread, there is this quote:

Quote

After detailing the early Mormon cosmology which necessitated adoption ritual, this article treats the participants, practice, and meaning of adoption in the Nauvoo Temple. Adoption theology, though still burgeoning, also served as an organizational nexus for the trek west. After reaching Utah, Church leaders’ views of adoption continued to develop though no adoptions were performed until the St. George Temple was dedicated in 1877. The thirty-one-year hiatus in the ritual’s performance did not impede belief in the importance of adoption, though confusion abounded. Once temples were available in Utah, Latter-day Saints performed adoption rituals, but in different ways than in Nauvoo. Furthermore, Church leaders began to question and debate the practice, which ultimately led to Wilford Woodruff’s 1894 revelation, transforming the temple liturgy and leading to contemporary Mormon belief and practice.

Do you know how and why the "adoption rituals" were performed "in different ways" in St. George vs. in Nauvoo?

.

Edited March 3, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

JLHPROF (or anyone), are there any statements or writings from Joseph Smith regarding the Law of Adoption or do you believe it was instigated by Brigham Young?

I found this (it's on Wikipedia, so that's why I'm asking you):

Quote

 

There is no surviving evidence that the "law of adoption" sealing practice was taught by Joseph Smith or his contemporaries prior to Smith's death in 1844. However, adoptions appeared on the records of the Nauvoo Temple in 1846, and scholars generally assume that the practice was instituted by Brigham Young.

Brigham Young had been sealed by the law of adoption to Joseph Smith, and in January and early February 1846 (before leaving for the Rocky Mountains on 15 February 1846), Young was sealed to 38 young men by the law of adoption in the Nauvoo Temple.^[5] On 23 February 1847, Young "went to see Joseph" in a dream and Young said that he spoke with Smith about the law of adoption.

 

So, if this is true, then all the men who were sealed to Joseph Smith were done via proxy after his death, correct?

.

Edited March 3, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

JLHPROF (or anyone), are there any statements or writings from Joseph Smith regarding the Law of Adoption or do you believe it was instigated by Brigham Young?

I found this (it's on Wikipedia, so that's why I'm asking you):

So, if this is true, then all the men who were sealed to Joseph Smith were done via proxy after his death, correct?

.

I don't believe Joseph ever publicly referred to the practice.

However, scholars have differing opinion as to whether it started before or after he died.  Just like Adam-God the best he did may have been subtle allusions that Brigham later ran with.  Gordon Irving, associate historian for the LDS Church, wrote for the spring 1974 issue of BYU Studies:

• No consensus exists with regard to the date when the first adoptions were performed any conclusions as to whether the ordinance was practiced during Joseph Smith s lifetime must be viewed as tentative. It is certainly possible perhaps probable that joseph smith did initiate certain trusted leaders into the adoptionary order as early as 1842.

Part of that reason would be what Brigham Young taught about it:

• "we can seal women to men but not men to men, without a Temple." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 186)

No temple was completed during Joseph's lifetime other than Kirtland before the ordinances were revealed.
And even President Woodruff's revocation of the general practice came with at least one exception.
When President Woodruff gave his famous discourse ending the practice he also said:

• "The Lord has told me that it is right for children to be sealed to their parents, and they to their parents just as far back as we can possibly obtain the records, and then have the last obtainable member sealed to the Prophet Joseph, who stands at the head of this dispensation."
  (He also said in the same discourse " In searching out my genealogy I found about four hundred of my female kindred who were never married. I asked Pres. Young what I should do with them. He said for me to have them sealed to me unless there were more than 999 of them. The doctrine startled me, but I had it done." - How's that for polygamy?)

 And of course we can't forget the revelation of Brigham Young where Joseph told him exactly what to do for the Law of Adoption.   Did Brigham lie/was he mistaken about that revelation?  If not then I would consider that a statement from Joseph Smith, even if it was posthumously delivered (like Christ's teachings in 3 Nephi for instance).

Edited March 3, 2016 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe Joseph ever publicly referred to the practice.

However, scholars have differing opinion as to whether it started before or after he died.  Just like Adam-God the best he did may have been subtle allusions that Brigham later ran with.  Gordon Irving, associate historian for the LDS Church, wrote for the spring 1974 issue of BYU Studies:

• No consensus exists with regard to the date when the first adoptions were performed any conclusions as to whether the ordinance was practiced during Joseph Smith s lifetime must be viewed as tentative. It is certainly possible perhaps probable that joseph smith did initiate certain trusted leaders into the adoptionary order as early as 1842.

Part of that reason would be what Brigham Young taught about it:

• "we can seal women to men but not men to men, without a Temple." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 186)

No temple was completed during Joseph's lifetime other than Kirtland before the ordinances were revealed.
And even President Woodruff's revocation of the general practice came with at least one exception.
When President Woodruff gave his famous discourse ending the practice he also said:

• "The Lord has told me that it is right for children to be sealed to their parents, and they to their parents just as far back as we can possibly obtain the records, and then have the last obtainable member sealed to the Prophet Joseph, who stands at the head of this dispensation."
  (He also said in the same discourse " In searching out my genealogy I found about four hundred of my female kindred who were never married. I asked Pres. Young what I should do with them. He said for me to have them sealed to me unless there were more than 999 of them. The doctrine startled me, but I had it done." - How's that for polygamy?)

 And of course we can't forget the revelation of Brigham Young where Joseph told him exactly what to do for the Law of Adoption.   Did Brigham lie/was he mistaken about that revelation?  If not then I would consider that a statement from Joseph Smith, even if it was posthumously delivered (like Christ's teachings in 3 Nephi for instance).

I agree (although Brigham had already began practicing the Law of Adoption prior to his dream where he spoke to Joseph about it in 1847).  His account of this dream is fascinating to read.

I have tried to find the temple work that was done for John Bernheisel (I haven't looked up ordinances on FamilySearch for some time and now I can't seem to navigate to where it displays these???).  So, I couldn't find who he was sealed to for his Mother (Joseph Smith being his Father).

Also, do you know the answer to the question I asked earlier:

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Do you know how and why the "adoption rituals" were performed "in different ways" in St. George vs. in Nauvoo?

 

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Also, do you know the answer to the question I asked earlier:

I don't.  I can research it later, but without a record of the actual ceremony wording for both I doubt we'll ever know.
Honestly, I think that statement with no context in the paper linked is a bit problematic.
They say it was performed in different ways and then provide no backing or explanation of what they meant.

What record do they have of Nauvoo and St. George adoption methodology that would lead to that statement?  Even a record of ordinances performed wouldn't include the actual ceremony itself.  I don't think a record of Nauvoo ordinance ceremonies even exists.

Edited March 3, 2016 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't.  I can research it later, but without a record of the actual ceremony wording for both I doubt we'll ever know.
Honestly, I think that statement with no context in the paper linked is a bit problematic.
They say it was performed in different ways and then provide no backing or explanation of what they meant.

What record do they have of Nauvoo and St. George adoption methodology that would lead to that statement?  Even a record of ordinances performed wouldn't include the actual ceremony itself.  I don't think a record of Nauvoo ordinance ceremonies even exists.

I wonder that too.  I was just curious after I read that statement.  

No worries, though if you don't know (I thought you might have read about this).  Don't put yourself our or spend a bunch of time on it unless you want to know for yourself.  Thanks for all of your help and answers here!

[USU78]

On 3/2/2016 at 5:24 PM, The Nehor said:

1. There appears to have been no mother.

2. Don't know.

In any case the Law of Adoption ended for a time. The idea behind it was to form a chain back to Adam of priesthood authority and proxy father/son relationships. This will survive in the eternities when those parts of the family tree that do not qualify for that glory are cut out and corrections made to complete that chain. It was done away in this life partially because there was a grasping for status as elders sought to be sealed to the "highest ranking" person they could and adopted sons would squabble and yada yada. Basically the same problem Jesus faced when the mother of James and John wanted to make sure her children got special seats in the coming Kingdom.

I think in this life it was helpful for a lot of adult converts cut off from their families who showed up in Utah to get a surrogate father.

Wilford Woodruff said:
 

That law has stood ever since as it is explicitly revelation.

I am unaware of any scriptural basis for man-to-man sealings that aren't brother-to-brother, father-to-son.

This phenomenon is an interesting XIXth Century relic, but hardly persuasive in or even germane to any argument in favor of homosexual marriage  ...  which, let's face it, is the reason it was brought up in the other thread and continued here.

What is appears to me this was is a relationship similar to the military and in our European past:  The superior is "Father" to the subordinate "Son":  Sire [father] declines to "Sir" even in today's military.

Edited March 4, 2016 by USU78

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I am unaware of any scriptural basis for or claimed revelation concerning man-to-man sealings that aren't brother-to-brother, father-to-son.

This phenomenon is an interesting XIXth Century relic, but hardly persuasive in or even germane to any argument in favor of homosexual marriage  ...  which, let's face it, is the reason it was brought up in the other thread and continued here.

CFR (the part in bold.  Please show or quote me where I stated this or even inferred it.)

JLHPROF already apologized to me for making the same accusation or assumption (in the other thread) and then read that I made it clear this is definitely NOT what I was doing.  That is specifically why I started a separate thread so as not to confuse the two topics or connect the two.

.

Edited March 4, 2016 by ALarson

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

CFR (the part in bold.  Please show or quote me where I stated this or even inferred it.)

JLHPROF already apologized to me for making the same accusation or assumption (in the other thread) after he read that I made it clear this is definitely NOT what I was doing.

I didn't say you made that claim, but rather that the very fact that this is in anybody's mind right now is the attempted wresting of this pretty innocuous phenomenon [by others] to profane ends.  My apology if that wasn't clear.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

I didn't say you made that claim, but rather that the very fact that this is in anybody's mind right now is the attempted wresting of this pretty innocuous phenomenon [by others] to profane ends.  My apology if that wasn't clear.

Ok.  And this was on my mind because of the material I am currently reading regarding the history of temple sealings in the church.  There was a section on it and I had a few questions.  I haven't ever thought for one second that the Law of Adoption sealings had anything to do with SSM.

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 I haven't ever thought for one second that the Law of Adoption sealings had anything to do with SSM.

You and me both, but there you have it.