Eternal Families

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To be fair, this could be referring to a legal adoption, not necessarily a temple sealing.
Joseph and Emma weren't even sealed as husband and wife before late 1843.

You know, that's true.  Except she (Jane) did repeat this offer again years later, right?  (When she was petitioning to have her work done.). Do you know what or how she stated it at that time?

Edited February 25, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

I would like to see what JLH finds out about child sealings.  I think if there were none at the time, it was likely as a wife.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would like to see what JLH finds out about child sealings.  I think if there were none at the time, it was likely as a wife.

I agree.  It'll will be interesting to see what he finds!

[Jeanne]

Quote

This may have turned out to be a whole different ball game..very interesting!!

 

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what you believe about the afterlife vs. what the afterlife actually is.

No worries here, whether I'm right or wrong. 

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, your claim that "It works how ever you think it will work." and "we know nothing substantial about the afterlife if it even exists at all" are rejections of revealed truths in scripture.

Not rejecting scripture at all from my perspective.  I find my views informed by scripture and my understanding of it as a literary device.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

To be fair, this could be referring to a legal adoption, not necessarily a temple sealing.
Joseph and Emma weren't even sealed as husband and wife before late 1843.

I find it unlikely though when they didn't adopt the Lawrences sisters, but were just guardians (were they guardians of the Partridges too?).  Did they adopt anyone besides those given to them as infants before any of their own survived?  Jane was at least 22 and possibly 30 according to Wiki when she joined the Church, so 24-32 perhaps when she knew Emma and Joseph.  Between her age and her race (not for Emma, but would the law have allowed a white to legally adopt a black?), legal adoption seems a stretch.  The only thing it would have accomplished outside of the emotional bond would have made Jane one of the heirs of Joseph and Emma's estate.  Seems unlikely no matter how much they loved her, they would have felt the need to do so when their own children were much younger and likely in case of their death, need more help than Jane.  

And given Joseph's belief in the supremacy of God's law, seems unlikely he would have been seeking for a legal adoption rather than seeking revelation on spiritual adoption if a daughter parent relationship was sought.

Another point against legal adoption was the presence of Jane's mother and family in town (according to wiki).

After Joseph died, she didn't stay with Emma, but moved to Brigham's household.

-----

Ahab, something I had forgotten that makes it clear the "eternal servant" idea wasn't what Jane wanted...she continued to petition to be sealed after the proxy servant sealing.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

You seem to know something about this, maybe even more than I do.

Would you say they both (Joseph and Jane) wanted to continue their relationship with each other as they knew it, or do you think maybe one didn't want to know the other one anymore?

I was talking about the Law of Adoption.

----

I find your question rather nonsensical.  Why does it have to be continuing their relationship as they knew it or not having a relationship at all?  Why not changing the relationship into one of family (either as wife or child)?

There is also no record that Joseph knew of Emma's offer, so you should be talking about what Emma and Jane wanted.

Obviously, since she continued to petition to be sealed as a child to Emma and Joseph all along, including after being proxy sealed as a servant, what Jane wanted was an eternal parent-child relationship with the Smiths.

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I was talking about the Law of Adoption.

----

I find your question rather nonsensical.  Why does it have to be continuing their relationship as they knew it or not having a relationship at all?  Why not changing the relationship into one of family (either as wife or child)?

There is also no record that Joseph knew of Emma's offer, so you should be talking about what Emma and Jane wanted.

Obviously, since she continued to petition to be sealed as a child to Emma and Joseph all along, including after being proxy sealed as a servant, what Jane wanted was an eternal parent-child relationship with the Smiths.

I think terms like parent-child relationship or law of adoption don't make very much sense on their own.  Jane said herself that she didn't know what Emma meant when she asked her if she wanted to be her and Joseph's child, but it is obvious to me that she would have wanted to continue her relationship with them as she knew it, if not to make it an even better relationship, regardless of what terms were used to describe it.  And I think both Joseph and Emma wanted that too.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Ahab

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I think terms like parent-child relationship or law of adoption don't make very much sense on their own.  Jane said herself that she didn't know what Emma meant when she asked her if she wanted to be her and Joseph's child, but it is obvious to me that she would have wanted to continue her relationship with them as she knew it, if not to make it an even better relationship, regardless of what terms were used to describe it.  And I think both Joseph and Emma wanted that too.

First of all, we have no record of what Joseph wanted.  So for you to continue stating that he'd have wanted them to continue their relationship as they " knew it" is odd.  Do you mean as his servant? If so, I highly doubt Joseph would have suggested or wanted that.  The idea to do this came years later under a different Prophet.

And, Jane first wanted to be sealed to Walker Lewis and to receive her endowments but this was denied (I think she tried several times to petition for this).  Then she asked to be given the ordinance of adoption (because of Emma's offer) so she could be sealed as a daughter to Joseph and Emma.  

So no, her desire wasn't to be sealed to Joseph as his eternal servant, but she finally accepted that as this was all that was offered to her.  And she was not allowed in the temple, it was all done by proxy for her.

Even after that was done, she petitioned the leaders for the rest of her life to receive the sealing that was offered to her by Emma.  But this was denied.

Edited February 25, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Interesting, I didn't know that.  

There are those who are leaning towards it being an offer to be sealed as a wife, not a child.  My memory is that is because at the time the only sealings being done were husband and wives.  Law of adoption sealings did not take place till after Joseph was dead.

Do you know if this is accurate?  If so, do you know when we started sealing nonBIC (especially adults) children to their parents when the parents were sealed while living, especially if there were BIC children around?

Also, were any women sealed as daughters in the Law of Adoption or was it just men to the best of your knowledge?  I don't remember reading or any women participating in such.

Anyone else knowing these details can answer too, please do in fact.

To the best of my research:

1. My memory is that is because at the time the only sealings being done were husband and wives.  Law of adoption sealings did not take place till after Joseph was dead.

• I can find no record of adoptions or child/parent sealings prior to Joseph's death.  Not even for his own children.  And since they weren't born in the covenant (except David) that would be an issue.  There is no record of them being sealed in the temple after Joseph's death as Hyrum's were either.
  This would lead me to think that either they had already had that done OR Emma refused to have it done in the temple.
• This makes it highly unlikely that either Joseph or Emma offered to have Jane Manning sealed to them as a daughter and the referenced adoption offer was probably not a temple ordinance.
• However, we know Joseph taught that the ordinance of sealing children to parents existed in August of 1843 so this one didn't come from Brigham:

  Quote

  Again the doctrine or sealing power of Elijah is as follows if you have power to seal on earth & in heaven then we should be Crafty, the first thing you do go & seal on earth your sons & daughters unto yourself, & yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory, & go ahead and not go back, but use a little Craftiness & seal all you can; & when you get to heaven tell your father that what you seal on earth should be sealed in heaven. I will walk through the gate of heaven and Claim what I seal & those that follow me & my Council. - Wilford Woodruff Journal Aug 27, 1843

  Kind of brings us back to his teaching that the Lord is bound when we do what he says.

2. Do you know when we started sealing nonBIC (especially adults) children to their parents when the parents were sealed while living, especially if there were BIC children around?

• Orson Pratt and Sarah Pratt had their two children Orson Jr and Celestia sealed to them in the Nauvoo temple Jan 17 1846.
• Daniel Spencer (abt 52) had his son Claudius (abt 24) sealed to himself and his deceased wife Sophronia (his wife Mary Spencer as proxy) Jan 1846.
  So that is an adult child sealed to parents.  Claudius was a married Seventy at the time he was sealed to his father.
• George Miller had both the natural children and adopted children of his wives sealed to him in the temple.

3. Also, were any women sealed as daughters in the Law of Adoption or was it just men to the best of your knowledge?  I don't remember reading or any women participating in such.

• Yes, many were, usually if their husbands were they were sealed at the same time.
• Ex.  Albert P. Rockwood and his wife Nancy Haven Rockwood were both sealed to Brigham Young and Miriam Works Young (Mary Ann Angell Young proxy) on Jan 25th 1846.
• John D. Lee and wife Aggatha Woolsey Lee both sealed to Brigham and Miriam same day and John and Aggatha also had many adopted adult sealings.
• One curiosity according to the records was that Hyrum Smith's children were sealed to Hyrum (Heber C. Kimball proxy) and Jerusha (Mary Fielding proxy).  The curiosity comes from the record that Mary's own children were sealed to Hyrum and Jerusha, not to herself.    That includes President Joseph F. Smith.
  This seems to be the pattern in the Nauvoo temple.  The majority of children were sealed to the first wife IF she was deceased no matter which mother.
  If all wives were living it appears they had their own children sealed to them.  Very strange pattern.
• Another might be that Robert B. Thompson (deceased) and his wife Mercy Fielding Thompson were sealed in adoption to Hyrum and Jerusha even though Mercy was Hyrum's wife for time.  However since Hyrum was deceased and her sealing for time had ended Mercy cannot be said to be married to her father. 

According to stats I have in the Nauvoo Temple 92 children were sealed to their parents and 202 adults were sealed under the Law of Adoption, both males and females.
Interesting NO sealings of deceased children to parents or deceased people as adoptions were done.  However sealing of living children and adoptions to deceased parents did happen.  John Bernheisel was sealed in the Law of Adoption to Joseph Smith (deceased).
 

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

To the best of my research:

1. My memory is that is because at the time the only sealings being done were husband and wives.  Law of adoption sealings did not take place till after Joseph was dead.

• I can find no record of adoptions or child/parent sealings prior to Joseph's death.  Not even for his own children.  And since they weren't born in the covenant (except David) that would be an issue.  There is no record of them being sealed in the temple after Joseph's death as Hyrum's were either.
  This would lead me to think that either they had already had that done OR Emma refused to have it done in the temple.
• This makes it highly unlikely that either Joseph or Emma offered to have Jane Manning sealed to them as a daughter and the referenced adoption offer was probably not a temple ordinance.
• However, we know Joseph taught that the ordinance of sealing children to parents existed in August of 1843 so this one didn't come from Brigham:

  Kind of brings us back to his teaching that the Lord is bound when we do what he says.

2. Do you know when we started sealing nonBIC (especially adults) children to their parents when the parents were sealed while living, especially if there were BIC children around?

• Orson Pratt and Sarah Pratt had their two children Orson Jr and Celestia sealed to them in the Nauvoo temple Jan 17 1846.
• Daniel Spencer (abt 52) had his son Claudius (abt 24) sealed to himself and his deceased wife Sophronia (his wife Mary Spencer as proxy) Jan 1846.
  So that is an adult child sealed to parents.  Claudius was a married Seventy at the time he was sealed to his father.
• George Miller had both the natural children and adopted children of his wives sealed to him in the temple.

3. Also, were any women sealed as daughters in the Law of Adoption or was it just men to the best of your knowledge?  I don't remember reading or any women participating in such.

• Yes, many were, usually if their husbands were they were sealed at the same time.
• Ex.  Albert P. Rockwood and his wife Nancy Haven Rockwood were both sealed to Brigham Young and Miriam Works Young (Mary Ann Angell Young proxy) on Jan 25th 1846.
• John D. Lee and wife Aggatha Woolsey Lee both sealed to Brigham and Miriam same day and John and Aggatha also had many adopted adult sealings.
• One curiosity according to the records was that Hyrum Smith's children were sealed to Hyrum (Heber C. Kimball proxy) and Jerusha (Mary Fielding proxy).  The curiosity comes from the record that Mary's own children were sealed to Hyrum and Jerusha, not to herself.    That includes President Joseph F. Smith.
  This seems to be the pattern in the Nauvoo temple.  The majority of children were sealed to the first wife IF she was deceased no matter which mother.
  If all wives were living it appears they had their own children sealed to them.  Very strange pattern.
• Another might be that Robert B. Thompson (deceased) and his wife Mercy Fielding Thompson were sealed in adoption to Hyrum and Jerusha even though Mercy was Hyrum's wife for time.  However since Hyrum was deceased and her sealing for time had ended Mercy cannot be said to be married to her father. 

According to stats I have in the Nauvoo Temple 92 children were sealed to their parents and 202 adults were sealed under the Law of Adoption, both males and females.
Interesting NO sealings of deceased children to parents or deceased people as adoptions were done.  However sealing of living children and adoptions to deceased parents did happen.  John Bernheisel was sealed in the Law of Adoption to Joseph Smith (deceased).
 

That is all so interesting to read through, JLHPROF!

So do you think Jane misunderstood from the beginning (thinking Emma meant a sealing), or do you think she knew that Emma meant a legal adoption at the time but then years later (out in Utah) asked for the ordinance of adoption to be sealed to Emma and Joseph (because of the former legal offer)?

Edited February 26, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

That is all so interesting to read through, JLHPROF!

So do you think Jane misunderstood from the beginning (thinking Emma meant a sealing), or do you think she knew that Emma meant a legal adoption at the time but then years later (out in Utah) asked for the ordinance of adoption to be sealed to Emma and Joseph (because of the former legal offer)?

I don't think we know.  If I had to guess it would be a legal adoption.  I doubt Emma would have offered a sealing when there is no record of her having that done for her own children.  But I think you could be right about what happened years later asking for adoption sealing.

I will say I am convinced we are missing something with Joseph and Emma's children.  I just don't see Joseph letting that slip by. Perhaps he did have them sealed between the time he was sealed to Emma in Sep 1843 and his death in June 1844.  Maybe that's where Brigham learned the ceremony.  There's got to be a record somewhere.

[JulieM]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I will say I am convinced we are missing something with Joseph and Emma's children.  I just don't see Joseph letting that slip by. Perhaps he did have them sealed between the time he was sealed to Emma in Sep 1843 and his death in June 1844.  Maybe that's where Brigham learned the ceremony.  There's got to be a record somewhere.

Maybe start another thread on this (as many may not be following this thread but could have info on the sealings of Joseph's children to him and Emma).

There should be a record somewhere of the sealings and it would be very interesting to know what you find or what others may know too.

Were sealings done maybe after the death of Joseph using a proxy?  It seems his children would have recorded that happening though (or Emma).

[CA Steve]

Some random thoughts I get when thinking about this concept of eternal families and how it fits within what we know about our universe. I know that many may want to respond that God isn't subject to such laws. Okay no argument there, or at least none that I am willing to defend at this time, but if He were subject to the laws of physics as we know them, how would we explain some of the following questions?

How does the concept of eternal increase and eternal families along with all spirits being made of matter, fit within the framework of what we currently know about the universe? How ever large our universe is, there is a limited amount of matter, how can there be an unlimited amount of spirits on an unlimited number of physical children in such a universe? Eventually we would run out of places to live or even matter with which to make bodies wouldn't we? Eternity is a really long time.

There are parts of the universe that due to expansion, in time will pass beyond the event horizon. If we are to be part of these eternally expanding families, eventually some parts will be so far away as to make it impossible to communicate unless one postulates a physical being with the ability to communicate or even move as speeds beyond the speed of light.

One of the more inviolable laws of physics is that 2nd law thermodynamics that leads to the heat death of the universe. How will eternal families survive such an event? Come on, 5 billion years is a drop in the bucket compared to eternity, isn't it?

 

Even if one postulates parallel universes, how would travel and communication between such universes be possible?

 

By the way, I do believe that impossible things can happen, just look at the BYU/Gonzaga  game last night.

Edited February 26, 2017 by CA Steve

[Calm]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think we know.  If I had to guess it would be a legal adoption.  I doubt Emma would have offered a sealing when there is no record of her having that done for her own children.  But I think you could be right about what happened years later asking for adoption sealing.

I will say I am convinced we are missing something with Joseph and Emma's children.  I just don't see Joseph letting that slip by. Perhaps he did have them sealed between the time he was sealed to Emma in Sep 1843 and his death in June 1844.  Maybe that's where Brigham learned the ceremony.  There's got to be a record somewhere.

I lean towards Emma offering a marriage sealing.  We have records of her doing that four times with other women/girls living and working in the mansion just as Jane was doing.  We have no record of her or Joseph offering to legally adopt any children after they were given the twins after their own had died and they had no other children, iirc.  Jane was most likely born in 1813, which would have made her only 9 years younger than Emma and 8 younger than Joseph.  It would have been very unusual for them to have adopted legally an adult whose own parent was still living, both in their family and the larger community.  There would have been no need, adults have no call for support on their parents nor would Jane have somehow received more at the time if she had been legally adopted and they had many other children.  Jane was not alone, her own family lived in Nauvoo.  

And inheritance...the age difference makes that likely useless plus Emma would likely have been very concerned that her own children who were not able to care for themselves have as much of an inheritance if something were to happen to both her and Joseph.  And there would have been no eternal impact.  Even with the Law of Adoption in place, I have never heard legal adult adoptions  increased.

I see legal adoption as a very long shot.  Much more likely a spiritual adoption, but with the current total lack of such till after Joseph's death and with the four very close examples of young women in the home who Emma gave her husband as wives; the only evidence against it is Jane's own understanding, an understanding she states herself was lacking in the actual discussion and only later did she interpret it as a child sealing.  What if she rejected the idea so strongly to begin with because she thought it was something along the lines of marriage and only later when spiritual adoptions took place, changed her interpretation to that because it was a much more comfortable and comforting idea?

Edited February 26, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

I lean towards Emma offering a marriage sealing.  We have records of her doing that four times with other women/girls living and working in the mansion just as Jane was doing.  We have no record of her or Joseph offering to legally adopt any children after they were given the twins after their own had died and they had no other children, iirc.  Jane was most likely born in 1813, which would have made her only 9 years younger than Emma and 8 younger than Joseph.  It would have been very unusual for them to have adopted legally an adult whose own parent was still living, both in their family and the larger community.  There would have been no need, adults have no call for support on their parents nor would Jane have somehow received more at the time if she had been legally adopted and they had many other children.  Jane was not alone, her own family lived in Nauvoo.  

And inheritance...the age difference makes that likely useless plus Emma would likely have been very concerned that her own children who were not able to care for themselves have as much of an inheritance if something were to happen to both her and Joseph.  And there would have been no eternal impact.  Even with the Law of Adoption in place, I have never heard legal adult adoptions  increased.

I see legal adoption as a very long shot.  Much more likely a spiritual adoption, but with the current total lack of such till after Joseph's death and with the four very close examples of young women in the home who Emma gave her husband as wives; the only evidence against it is Jane's own understanding, an understanding she states herself was lacking in the actual discussion and only later did she interpret it as a child sealing.  What if she rejected the idea so strongly to begin with because she thought it was something along the lines of marriage and only later when spiritual adoptions took place, changed her interpretation to that because it was a much more comfortable and comforting idea?

Did Joseph and Emma actually legally adopt the Murdock twins?  I've read that wasn't done much back then.

I think Jane was totally caught off guard by the sealing offer from Emma.  She seemed to assume it was an adoption offer.  She may not have heard the plural wives rumors and most likely wouldn't have expected Joseph's wife to offer that. 

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by JulieM

[Atheist Mormon]

On 2/24/2017 at 1:57 PM, snowflake said:

Could someone please explain to me exactly how the LDS concept of "eternal families"  is supposed to work. Does it work like families here on earth where you have kids and then they eventually marry off and leave you to create their own families? Or will you always be with your parents. Are there any empty nester "gods" whose families left to create their own universes? What about spirit babies too, how are those "organized/created"?

Does LDS version sound little bit more absurd than traditional Catholic & protestant version? If you are a little versed about traditional Christian one, please enlighten us first...then I willl give my 2 cents in LDS version.....

[ksfisher]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Some random thoughts I get when thinking about this concept of eternal families and how it fits within what we know about our universe. I know that many may want to respond that God isn't subject to such laws. Okay no argument there, or at least none that I am willing to defend at this time, but if He were subject to the laws of physics as we know them, how would we explain some of the following questions?

How does the concept of eternal increase and eternal families along with all spirits being made of matter, fit within the framework of what we currently know about the universe? How ever large our universe is, there is a limited amount of matter, how can there be an unlimited amount of spirits on an unlimited number of physical children in such a universe? Eventually we would run out of places to live or even matter with which to make bodies wouldn't we? Eternity is a really long time.

There are parts of the universe that due to expansion, in time will pass beyond the event horizon. If we are to be part of these eternally expanding families, eventually some parts will be so far away as to make it impossible to communicate unless one postulates a physical being with the ability to communicate or even move as speeds beyond the speed of light.

One of the more inviolable laws of physics is that 2nd law thermodynamics that leads to the heat death of the universe. How will eternal families survive such an event? Come on, 5 billion years is a drop in the bucket compared to eternity, isn't it?

 

Even if one postulates parallel universes, how would travel and communication between such universes be possible?

 

By the way, I do believe that impossible things can happen, just look at the BYU/Gonzaga  game last night.

Should God be limited to the universe?

[CA Steve]

13 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Should God be limited to the universe?

Does God posses a physical body? If so, how would such a physical body travel outside the universe? Or between universes, assuming there are such things?

If God is subject to natural laws how is he accomplishing leaving the universe?

[ksfisher]

59 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Does God posses a physical body? If so, how would such a physical body travel outside the universe? Or between universes, assuming there are such things?

If God is subject to natural laws how is he accomplishing leaving the universe?

Is God subject to natural law?  I don't know if he is or isn't.  I don't know how anyone could know that unless he chose to reveal.  I'm not aware of any canonized revelation that describes to us God's relation to natural law.

Also, what we call natural law seems to be limited to what we can observe/detect/theorize about.  I wonder if we really only understand a small portion of what "natural law" is from our limited perspective. 

It is not "natural" for a resurrected being to rise from the grave, yet we believe Christ did it and so have a hope that we may one day also rise from the grave as resurrected beings.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

If God is subject to natural laws how is he accomplishing leaving the universe?

Because God is subject to laws, but many laws are subject to God.
Death is a natural law, Christ bypassed it.
Christ walked on water.  Angels levitate above the ground (as did Christ and the Father).
Mountains can be moved, planets change location, the entire earth will become a "sea of glass".

I think when it comes to natural laws God is above most of them because they only apply to a fallen situation.

God is subject to eternal laws, not temporal ones.

[CA Steve]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Is God subject to natural law?  I don't know if he is or isn't.  I don't know how anyone could know that unless he chose to reveal.  I'm not aware of any canonized revelation that describes to us God's relation to natural law.

Also, what we call natural law seems to be limited to what we can observe/detect/theorize about.  I wonder if we really only understand a small portion of what "natural law" is from our limited perspective. 

It is not "natural" for a resurrected being to rise from the grave, yet we believe Christ did it and so have a hope that we may one day also rise from the grave as resurrected beings.

Well as I stated I am just looking at how God might be able to act if he were.

As far as being subject to natural laws, according to LDS theology, He can neither destroy or create matter, so there is that.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Well as I stated I am just looking at how God might be able to act if he were.

As far as being subject to natural laws, according to LDS theology, He can neither destroy or create matter, so there is that.

Can he neither destroy or create matter, or does he neither destroy or create matter?  I'm not sure we really understand what matter is.  I think our perspective and understanding is really very limited.

Edited February 27, 2017 by ksfisher

[thesometimesaint]

LDS belief is that God organizes matter. Not that he creates/destroys it.