I’ve heard about the Law of Adoption as an LDS theological point of the past, but never really understood it very well. I enjoyed reading Brian Hales discussion of the concept in his book, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: Volume 3. (This is a follow up post on the book; I previously discussed Hales position that there is no spirit birth.) Hales discusses the idea in Chapter 11 of his book (page 170)
An immediate concern among Latter-day Saints as they contemplated their sealings to their “parents” was whether they should be sealed to their biological ancestors or to some unrelated person, such as a Church leader (either living or deceased). Fears that their own deceased progenitors might not accept the gospel in the afterlife fueled worry that their chain might lead back a few generations and then stop due to disbelief of a dead forebear. Fears existed that righteous individuals could possibly be eternally stranded outside the chain leading back to Adam and Eve.
For some, a second option seem more secure. Confident that the genealogical links of Church leaders like Joseph Smith would surely be completed back to Adam before the final judgment, some Latter-day Saints considered sealings to priesthood leaders more reliable in providing them a position in the eternal chain.
Contrary to my post in which I said no vicarious ordinances occurred until the St. George Temple was completed in 1877, Hales says that a few did occur in the Nauvoo Temple (page 173.)
Both forms of vertical sealings–adoption to nonbiological offspring and child-to-parent ordinances–occurred first in the Nauvoo Temple beginning in January 1846….During five weeks, at the beginning of 1846, 211 males and females were adopted to seventeen couples to whom they were not closely related. These couple comprised of sixteen men and seventeen women. These included Brigham Young, who had individuals sealed to him and two of his wives, one deceased and one living.
Several of the adoption sealings involved vicarious ordinances. However the only deceased couple to be sealed to either their own children or non-offspring were Hyrum and Jershua Barden Smith. Through proxy representation, they were sealed to twelve non-relatives and five biological children, all living. Importantly, one of the adoption sealings linked Robert B. Thompson, who was also deceased, to them as a son. Thus, the only completely vicarious vertical sealing performed in the Nauvoo Temple was officiated by Brigham Young on January 26, 1846, and consisted of an adoption sealing of Thompson (with John Taylor as proxy) to the couple Hyrum Smith and Jerusha Barden Smith (with Heber C. Kimball and Mary Fielding Smith as proxies.)27
No deceased children were sealed to their parents in the Nauvoo Temple.
Hales the notes (page 178)
For reasons that are unclear, adoption became a hot topic among some Church leaders and members in the months immediately after the closure of the Nauvoo Temple. Ensuing discussions at that time prompted solicitations from a few leaders for Latter-day Saints to join their expanding families.38 For example, Hosea Stout recorded: “This evening Elder O. Hyde who had moved over the river to the main camp there, came here to his camp and called a meeting and spoke at length to them on the law of adoption. The first sermon I ever heard publickly. He desired all who felt willing to do so to give him a pledge to come into his kingdom when the ordinance could be attended to but wished all to select the man whom they chose &c.”39
Hales notes other church leaders tried to convince families to be adopted to them, but Brigham Young (page 178) “began by criticizing men for electioneering to find individuals to be sealed to them” and (page 180)
Young still harbored questions regarding adoption theology. According to a later report, the next day he received a vision or dream, in which he was visited by Joseph Smith… [and said] “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.”
…
(page 181) Young highly valued this experience. Even though the Prophet did not directly answer his question, the theophany seems to have alleviated any anxiety he had concerning the practice.
While the practice of sealing oneself to church leaders did continue to occur, Hales notes (page 182) the practice was one of the
least performed temple rites effectuated during the two month period. The relatively small number of nonfamily members who position themselves for those vertical sealings supports that it was minimally discussed, if at all.
…
Despite a general retreat in public discourse regarding the law of adoption, many Church members saw the expanding family organizations of several Church authorities and sought to be joined to them for practical reasons, even if the spiritual advantages of doing so were undefined. As already noted, however, in circumstances lacking a temple, no adoption sealing ordinances could be performed. Personal promises and pledges concerning future adoption sealings, sometimes accompanied by a covenant, were all that could be contracted.
…(page 183)
Understandably, due to a lack of details surrounding the law of adoption, some Church members were confused.
I’m glad it’s not just me! When the St. George Temple opened in 1877, (page 185)
Church policy [in 1877] directed that children of faithful members of the Church not “born in the covenant” be sealed to their natural parents, whether any or all of those involved were living or not. If natural parents had not been baptized Mormons during life or had apostatized from the Church, their children were to be adopted to someone else. The sealing of a person to a dead non-Mormon was seen as being risky since the departed parent might not accept the gospel in the spirit world. Such uncertainty about one’s position in the next life was unacceptable, especially to converts whose parents had been strongly opposed to Mormonism during life.65
Wilford Woodruff was the first temple president of the St. George Temple, and of course went on to become prophet. Page 186
From 1877 until the close of 1893, about 19,000 living persons and 16,000 deceased individuals were sealed to their biological parents.68 In contrast, approximately, 1,200 living persons and 13,000 deceased individuals were adopted to nonbiological parents.69 LDS leaders were the most popular adoptive parents, with temple officials being second. Dead Mormon authorities were particularly sought because, unlike living leaders, they could be represented by proxy in the ceremony, which greatly facilitated scheduling issues.
In preparation for his general conference discourse on April 8, 1894, Church President Wilford Woodruff discussed the law of adoption with members of the Quorum of the Twelve. In a special meeting on the April 5, he observed: “In the days of Nauvoo, baptisms for the dead were performed in the Mississippi River, and without any record of the same being kept; this was because of the people being anxious to do the work after the revelation was given, but it all had to be done again. I was thus baptized for many. Men were also baptized for women, and women for men, which was improper, but it was because the Lord had not revealed all that was necessary concerning the doctrine.”70 In order to prepare the apostles for additional instructions regarding the law of adoption, President Woodruff used this example to show that doctrines are not always revealed at once.71 On Sunday morning, April 8, he addressed the crowded tabernacle congregation. He began by acknowledging that the adoption ordinances performed up to that point had been according to the knowledge then available:
…(page 188)
When I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to (we were then being adopted to prophets and apostles), the Spirit of God said to me, “Have you not a father, who begot you?” “Yes, I have.” “Then why not honor him?” Why not be adopted to him?” “Yes,” says I, “that is right.” I was adopted to my father, and should have had my father sealed to his father, and so on back; and the duty that I want every man who presides over a temple to see performed this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father…”
Thus we no longer practice the Law of Adoption any more, and it is more of a footnote in history. Church president Lorenzo Snow stated (page 189), “very, very few of those who die without the Gospel will reject it on the other side of the veil.”78 Just 7 months after this conference address, Woodruff established the Genealogical Society of Utah to assist people research their ancestors.
I guess we still believe in the Law of Adoption in one way. My sister recently adopted a foster child, and has had this daughter sealed to her rather than the biological parents. What do you make of this now defunct doctrine? Are there other doctrines you see falling away as a footnote of history?
All sorts of practices (doctrines, if you will) have changed over time. For example, I understand from my reading that the sacrament prayers were once said with uplifted hands — but we don’t do that anymore.
There may be more change in the future. Maybe one day we’ll stand for our hymn-singing?
I see the humanity of the early Saints who took a little and did their best, and then learned more upon reflection and changed. I can see the hand of God in this sort of progress.
“Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.”
The part that interests me is when I apply this to Prophets receiving revelation. Here we have members and leaders alike who seemed confused over the whole Adoption idea and no one came out and said, “I just spoke with the Lord and this is how it needs to be done.” In all honesty, it reinforces my idea the Church is not really led by revelation. It is people who think they know what God wants and are doing the best they can within their culture and understanding.
Its fascinating to me how a concept, so central to our contemporary temple practice, could genesis from a conference talk, and not from any formal revelation or canonization of scripture. A central piece in the way people see work for the dead and it call comes from Woodruff’s conference address in 1894.
Question, do we know when born in the covenant theology developed? When did that idea get started in the church?
Sealing practices have undergone many changes over the last century. When I was going through family notes, I asked my mom why a sister of my great-grandma who passed away as a young teenager was showing up sealed as a wife to my great-grandpa. My mom explained that they took the idea seriously you needed to be married in the temple to be exalted. Completing the young girl’s temple work meant giving her a husband as well.
I had similar confusion when I came across submitted temple sheets with giant “DO NOT SEAL” stamped in red all over them. The rules regarding which wives could be sealed to which husbands (and corresponding kids sealed to which parent pairings) have not been static over the last century. Allowing women to be sealed to more than one spouse (only in the last couple decades, from what I understand) has been incredibly helpful in simplifying temple work for the dead.
Hope_for_things, looks like Brigham Young was talking BIC theology in the early 1870s. (http://scottwoodward.org/temple_lawofadoption.html)
Vicarious ordinances for the dead are central to the LDS conceptualization of themselves as the “only true church,” because all people who ever lived must have their names shuffled through these ordinances in order to get a place in the Celestial Kingdom. But the extraordinary variability, confusion, and arbitrariness of these ordinances over the years makes one wonder how “essential” these ordinances really are in some kind of objective way. Could it be that the ordinances are centrally much more about “turning the hearts of fathers to children and children to fathers” then satisfying some kind of stuffy heavenly bureaucracy that insists everyone jump through just so many hoops? I have no doubt that the dead honour our efforts on their behalf, and our efforts keep the lives of our ancestors in our hearts. And thinking of the ordinances as “essential” keeps us anxiously engaged. But they can also be sacred and meaningful without being essential.
hope for things,
I think it isn’t accurate to say there wasn’t a revelation. Woodruff described the vision in the Conference talk when he said
That’s the revelation.
You are correct in saying it wasn’t canonized, but both he and Brigham had revelations. (I omitted the vision from Brigham because essentially Joseph Smith appeared to him but was vague about Adoption, and as I said in the post “Young highly valued this experience. Even though the Prophet did not directly answer his question, the theophany seems to have alleviated any anxiety he had concerning the practice.”
I had a mission companion who, at 18, was adopted by her YW president and her husband and then sealed to them as her child. In order to do this, she had to request permission from her biological parents to be legally separated from them and then legally adopted to the other family.
I have a feeling similar to what Nate is expressing. God does not need “us” to determine who may or may not enter the Celestial Kingdom. God is all-powerful. If God wants someone to be in the CK, then God can make that happen. If it means that work must done in the millennium to make sure that every last paper is shuffled through, then God can make that happen. If God says ‘it is enough’ then, God can call the amount of work done sufficient. Nevertheless, the direction to do vicarious work has been given to us as a principle with eternal implications. When there is a law decreed, blessings for the living who obey the law are attached.
And in the way that Jared’s brother was left to figure out how to provide light in the barges, I can see Joseph in a similar light sitting in those meetings of the Masons. I can see him wondering how he was going to help the children of the kingdom remember the topics of the major covenants associated with temple worship and a light coming on. The light being that ritual would accomplish that in a way that would work with the technologies of the times and in a way that would result in a sacred treatment of the subject. (I would say ritual AND repetition–but it seems that the repetitive temple experience idea came after Joseph’s death).
I think that the idea of Celestial Marriage got off track in the primitive era of the restored church. The whole idea that a man would gain an eternal increase by entering polygamous marriages to have more biological offspring was not a true understanding. President Woodroof’s communication with God was instrumental in getting that back on track. I really don’t see that those who were sealed to or adopted to another person would have to worry about whether that person reaches the CK. God has covenanted with that person that they will receive those blessings–so God will assure that they are received. One is sealed to God in that sense.
“You are correct in saying it wasn’t canonized”
Would someone like to make a motion that it be canonized?
Aye. I second Rigel’s motion! Should have added it to our Weekend poll. (So sad we lost those results!)
Rigel said “I can see Joseph in a similar light sitting in those meetings of the Masons. I can see him wondering how he was going to help the children of the kingdom remember the topics of the major covenants associated with temple worship and a light coming on”
I’ve contemplated this as well. I’ve read about how much the temple ordinances have changed over the years. Posts such as this one highlighting major changes in our doctrine on eternal relationships and the temple further my confusion as to what the purpose of the temple really is. How much of what we claim as beliefs regarding the temple are simply vestiges of Joseph and past leaders trying to figure things out?
Of ordinances, Nate said: “But they can also be sacred and meaningful without being essential.”
Yes, I can get on board with this. So long as they are also not sexist. I’d like to attend the temple again. But the Patriarchal Order stuff leaves me feeling less than human and further from Deity than ever. So long as everything that goes on within those walls continues to be touted as the ultimate spiritual experience where eternal Truths are revealed, lots of pain continues to be had by many.
@maybe
You are exactly right. The reason these things are so mutable and confusing is that they’re a hodge-podge of 19th century thinking that Smith was exposed to. As one example, consider the relationship between Mormonism and spiritualism–a hot topic in Smith’s time. One aspect of it (espoused by Swedenborg and others) was the idea that the spirits of humans close in life would attract each other after death. A loving marriage in life would result in spirits remaining together in death, but a loveless marriage would result in spirits drifting apart after death. This, I think, is the root of Smith’s eternal families concept. The problem was that he adapted and morphed the original concepts without thinking them through, and that’s why it’s such a confusing mess today. Modern Mormons claim that ordinances, sealing, eternal families, etc. are core concepts, yet can’t even agree on the details, if pressed. The same goes for other ideas lifted from spiritualism like inhabiting other planets after death, spirits being reborn in physical bodies, “intelligences”, visitations, communication with the dead, and so forth. Smith and his cohorts basically cobbled these ideas together without really understanding them. The result is a religion that sounds good on paper, but is confusing (and downright embarrassing) to examine in detail.
Maybee,
I am on board with your ideas and hope that further light and knowledge will be sought and implemented. I try to see it this way for myself. I look at the mirror symbolism in the Celestial rooms and Sealing Rooms and the veil symbolism as that the kingdom of God in Heaven can be visualized as a mirror image of the kingdom of God on earth–an enantiomer. That our Patriarchal Order is an enantiomer of what a heavenly order will be. With hope, the closer we are prepared to receive that light and knowledge, the more our temple symbolism will approach those enantiomers being united. That doesn’t necessarily make it easier for hearing our current temple endowment ceremony, but it gives me a reason to hope.
anon, while your analysis in your most previous comment has some merit (and interesting points), your disdain for the LDS Church will get you banned from this site. Please refrain from the unnecessary (and downright embarrassing) disdain for the LDS Church. Once again, take your disdain elsewhere or you will soon not be allowed to comment any more here. The internet is a big place and I’m sure you can find lots of places to spew your embarrassing disdain. It is not welcome here.
Rigel, I think I get what you’re saying. That the Patriarchal Order in the temple currently doesn’t reflect the true order in heaven? And that you have hope for the day that the two will align? Am I misunderstanding you? If I’m correct then I share your hope. I have no problem saying that I don’t believe that part of the temple is inspired, but it’s still too difficult for me to attend and hear the words.
After not attending for a few years I witnessed a close family member be sealed to her spouse. The sealer spent the majority of the time talking about the Patriarchal Order, to an extreme, a celebration of sorts. To the extent of saying that it will be his faithfulness in this life, not hers, that will lead them to the Celestial Kingdom. That she is meant to focus on hearkening to him. It wasn’t fair but I had used that experience as a sort of litmus test on future temple attendance, and I haven’t gone back since.
Maybee
It appears that the Patriarchal order is eternal in nature. Are you saying you would rather thumb your nose up at it? I don’t know how fun it would be to be single and separate forever and ever and ever. Eternity. Do you know how long that is?