So, several months after the release of episode 1 of our Mormon history podcast (and, in fact, several months after the recording of episode 2), the show has now been finished up, in terms of sound editing and so forth, and is ready for release! Download the episode here, or subscribe to the podcast by clicking the link in the right sidebar. In this episode, Serenity and I focus on the Law of Adoption as practiced during the 19th century. The best study on the Law of Adoption is Gordon Irving’s 1974 piece, “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830-1900,” in BYU Studies 14 (3). We also mention a relatively recent tabloid news article focused on the Law of Adoption, available here.
We really do intend to release episodes on a somewhat more regular basis! The next episode will focus on the Mormon experiences of William and Wilson Law. Please post any questions, comments, or corrections in the comment thread below!
I’d like to point out that I first learned about “adoption” from the Ensign, one I read on my mission. James B. Allen, “Line upon Line,” Ensign, July 1979
A recent BYU Studies article also touched on it. Richard E. Bennet, “‘Line upon Line, Precept upon Precept:’ Reflections on the 1877 Commencement of the Performance of Endowments and Sealings for the Dead” BYU Studies, 44:3 (2005).
Ben, thanks for the links. The Allen article from the Ensign is helpful on many topics, although it underplays the role of Joseph Smith in beginning the Law of Adoption. We have various primary sources suggesting that Smith taught something much like the version practiced during the Brigham Young period. While it is correct, as Allen points out, that Smith never published a revelation on the Law of Adoption, he also never published the temple endowment or the sealing ordinance as a revelation; as Bushman’s biography correctly points out, Smith’s tendency to explicitly announce new teachings as revelations nearly ceased after the Ohio/Missouri period. So it seems to me that the Law of Adoption can be more directly traced back to Smith than Allen suggests.
Looking forward to the listen. The topic seems interesting and it seems like this came up somewhere around the blogs this week, but I forgot where. I was intrigued at the time and am interested in learning more.
D-Train, the Law of Adoption came up in J. Stapley’s interesting comments on the relative importance of revelations. We recorded this show about three months ago; the discussion there was what motivated me to finally finish processing the file.
I hope you enjoy it!
I’m excited to listen.
Great podcast, kaboodles of fun. Good stuff! Thanks for putting it together. “This day in LDS History.” Tee hee.
Ann, thanks–I’m glad you enjoyed it! The “This Day…” segment does indeed apply to the day we recorded the show… But life and the job market intervened.
Hey! I got a chance to listen, and really enjoyed it.
I can’t believe that I’ve lived 36 years in the church and didn’t know about this adoption thing. I thought I knew all of the major historical issues….and this one is definitely significant. Thanks for educating me.
I very much look forward to your next ones!!!
John, thanks for your positive feedback. It’s nice to hear that someone other than me learned something from this episode!
Fine work, Serenity and RT! The experiences of the folks that you researched were simply unbelievable. You presented a compelling explanation of a really significant doctrinal shift and an interesting cultural narrative.
One question: you mention near the end of the episode that we’ve moved toward much greater trust in the afterlife and the dead (in the sense that we don’t have to be sure and find a righteous family on earth). What do you think prompted that shift? Might it be that we simply hadn’t really worked out the implications involved with combining a huge doctrinal emphasis on agency with the unique aspects of the sealing idea?
D-Train, thanks for the nice words. Your question is a good one. I would be tempted to say that the answer is a combination of a few different things. First, the shift may have been in part a reaction to the this-life difficulties associated with the practice of the Law of Adoption. Second, it may have reflected the general Mormon move toward accomodation to the broader U.S. culture that was underway at the time and that included the end of the church political party and of polygamy. Third, we shouldn’t dismiss out of hand Woodruff’s claim of revelation.
I got to listen to the first part of the podcast this morning. Good stuff. A few thoughts:
You might consider listing some references in your post for your bits on the WoW and other stuff, so that people who are interested can look up forther information.
Perhaps you will get to this in the second half, but there are few things that I think are important:
Adoption went through several phases of practice and it is important to sepperate John Lee’s experience from Joseph’s and from the latter 1870’s and 80’s. I think it was easy for people to get carried away or for Bro. Lee to remain in 1847 when the rest of the church moved on.
The concept of legal right to the priesthood by being born in the covenant or being adopted is still very important, I think. Even though Woodruff’s revelation proscribed adoptions in this life, I think that he believed that they would be issued in the next to fix the chain that would innevitably be in shambles
J, thanks for your thoughts. I’ll look at the references issue when I get a minute.
You say, “The concept of legal right to the priesthood by being born in the covenant or being adopted is still very important, I think.” I agree that these ideas haven’t been disavowed at all. Furthermore, it’s clear to me that Woodruff believed that kinks in the chain of sealings would be worked out in the next life; this would seem to inevitably involve adoptions. However, I haven’t heard either of these doctrines taught in normal church settings any time recently. They may be true, but I think they aren’t as important to most of us (or as familiar) as they were in the 19th century.
By the way, we tried to be clear about the different phases of the Law of Adoption; I hope that came through in the final show, and I’m sorry if it didn’t. We experimented with a somewhat looser script this time, and I’m not sure that I’m entirely happy with the results… We’ll keep trying. (Amateur Mormon history radio. What’s not to love?)
Actually, I really enjoyed the looser format. You and Serenity seemed more comfortable and relaxed in this episode compared to the first.
The content in both episodes has been excellent. But personally, I preferred the looser and more conversational tone of the second.
By the way, we tried to be clear about the different phases of the Law of Adoption;
Just listened to the second half of the podcast, and this is, indeed, the case. Next time, I’ll finish the podcast before commenting.
RT,
I definitely think there was a high probablility that Woodruff was inspired to make the sealing changes that you mentioned. In a lot of ways, I think we just kind of gave up on trying to reconcile the doctrines of eternal families, personal accountability, and the need for temple ordinances. The faith that God will work it out in the end in some way that we don’t understand is probably the only way to combine those doctrines.
I haven’t been in the church 36 years like john has, but I too had never heard of this before. The closest I heard was in one of John’s podcasts about polygamy including ties to different families through marriage.
The MLF podcast at
ldsliberationfront.net/?p=163
is worth listening to but there are some errors which make it a little misleading. At one point Serenity says, “adoption was something that could be performed in a temple but didn’t have to be.” Actually that was true of marital sealings but not adoptions and sealings of children to parents. According to Brigham (and Joseph) adoptions and sealing to parents had to performed in a temple. Although adoption may have been practiced from 1842 it probably was set up by covenant to later be performed after the Nauvoo temple was dedicated.
The podcast gives the false impression that Lineal or Patriarchal priesthood is no longer important. Actually that is not the case. A close reading of Joseph Smith’s 27 August 1843 discourse shows us that there are three Priesthoods Levitical, Patriarchal, and the Fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood. The doctrine on these three priesthoods hasn’t changed.
All persons are given a preliminary entrance into the family of Israel by performing baptism with the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood in the spirit of Elias. Confirming and bestowing the gift of the holy ghost must be done with a portion of the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood.
D&C 107:39 to 54 describes the lineage of the Patriarchal Priesthood or Priesthood of Abraham (a greater portion of the Melchizedek Priesthood) going back to Adam through Seth. Joseph and Hyrum were literal descendants of Joseph who was sold into Egypt. They held by virtue of their lineage the Abrahamic birthright to the presiding keys in this priesthood.
The prophet Joseph received various portions of this priesthood from Peter (the apostleship), Moses(the keys of the Gathering), and Elias (the dispensation of the Gospel of Abraham).[See D&C 110]. .
D&C 84:6-17 describes the adoptive Priesthood Fathers in the Fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood going back to Adam through the righteous Abel. The fulness of the Priesthood does not necessarily pass from Father to son but it is without Father or Mother being given by revelation. Nevertheless there is a Patriarchal order in this priesthood which pertains to exaltation. The Patriarchal order in this Priesthood is established by the sealing and the adoption ordinances. This is the spirit of Elijah.
What RoastedTomato says about how Joseph was tied into the chain of priesthood is somewhat misleading. Joseph is tied into the Patriarchal Priesthood or Priesthood of Abraham by being a literal birthright descendant of Joseph who was sold into Egypt.
Joseph is tied into the order of the Fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood by being adopted to Peter and to Moses and the other persons named in D&C 84:6-17.
All who are exalted as a result of the efforts of this dispensation will have their lines sealed to Joseph the head of this dispensation. Joseph’s line is sealed back to Adam who from the beginning was sealed to Jehovah and Jehovah to the Father.
This is according to the 1894 revelation to Wilford Woodruff suggesting we trace our lines back as far as possible and then attend to the the ordinance of adoption sealing the earliest ancestor to Joseph or Joseph’s line.
The ordinance of adoption was a higher ordinance that was often not performed until after a member had received the fulness of the priesthood. The purpose of the ordinance is to place the person who has the fulness of the priesthood in a Patriarchal order that ties into not only the blood lineage but the Father’s in the Priesthood such as Abraham and Enoch mentioned in D&C 84:6ff.
According to Alvin R. Dyer’s Education: Moving Toward and Under the Law of Consecration (BYU Studies 1969), sealing is involvement with laws,
“in order to be sealed to Enoch we would have to become involved in the law of consecration.”
So the law of adoption is about being sealed through Joseph to the various Father’s in the Priesthood and not just to our blood lineage.
The ordinance of adoption was intended to be performed in a higher room than either the sealings in marriage or the anointing to a fulness of the priesthood. The East Tower Sealing room in the Salt Lake Temple was originally designed for this purpose the room on the “3rd floor” of the temple is higher than both the sealing rooms in the Celestial room and the special room in which the fulness of the priesthood is bestowed.
At present no work is to be done for people who lived before 100 A.D. during the Millenium that may change. However whether the genealogical society performs any adoptions to Joseph in this day and age, the 1894 revelation to adopt our lines to Joseph has NOT been superseded to my knowledge.
IMO its a myth that we are going to research our genealogy back to Adam and skip sealing our lines to the head of this dispensation the Prophet Joseph.
Our understanding of the plan of Salvation is somewhat incomplete so the reasons for some of the things we are commanded to do are not always clear to us.
Other people not of the literal descent of Abraham must be adopted to his lineage. Since there has not been an unbroken chain of Active Priesthood lineage down to our natural parents, we have to be sealed to our Fathers (and mothers) with the Earliest ancestor being sealed to Joseph and Joseph being sealed to his Fathers in the Priesthood including Abraham.. Everyone will be sealed back through Joseph and his Fathers in the Priesthood.
kind regards,
Randall Larsen PhD.
Honolulu, Hawaii
Randall, thanks for your comments. I’m glad you found the podcast interesting. I think you and I have a slightly different interpretation of current Mormon doctrine. Some aspects of past belief, including the idea of inherited priesthood office, have been effectively completely silenced in current correlated theological discourse. In my interpretation, this means that those beliefs have been abandoned by the church. That doesn’t mean they are or aren’t true–simply that, in my view, they aren’t part of our on-the-ground theological package anymore.
The revealed statement about adopting our lines to Joseph has not ever been officially reversed by new revelation. However, it also isn’t being obeyed. This could, I think, be interpreted in two ways: 1) the church isn’t following revealed instructions, or 2) the church has changed its position on this issue, possibly following private inspiration. So I think it’s reasonable to interpret this with the idea that, in some way, this instruction has been superceded.
Also, the best records do show that adoptions were performed before the Nauvoo temple was built. They were repeated in the temple, as were all baptisms for the dead and marriage sealings. Your hypothesis that the adoptions were treated differently is possible, of course. But in any case, Serenity’s statement about adoptions possibly having been performed outside the temple remains, I think, plausible.
Again, I’m glad to see that you were interested in the podcast! And thanks also for raising some of the available alternate interpretations of this history.
RoastedTomatoes and Listmembers,
Publicly available Nauvoo Temple records show a number of adoptions. The problem is that they don’t show any link to Joseph. There is no record for example to show that Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, or John Taylor was adopted to Joseph. These men later claimed to be adopted but where is the record other than Journal accounts. The Nauvoo Book of Proxy shows that John Bernhisel was adopted to Joseph but who stood as Joseph’s wife for ordinance, who administered, who stood as proxy for Joseph its not recorded.
Of course there are numerous adoptions recorded in the St. George temple in march of 1894 just prior to his April conference address (whihc reversed the order of sealings and made adoption relate to the ealiest ancestor rather than to the church member) Wilford Woodruff sealed his father Aphek Woodruff to Joseph. He didn’t make a lot of effort to find earlier ancesstors than his father.
Cook and Ehat in notes to Joseph 13 August 1843
discourse have this to say about the Patriarchaal Pristhood:
quote
8. According to the teachings that the Prophet gave in private
(but which he only hinted at in this discourse), to be heir to
Abraham’s promise that he would head an innumerable posterity,
each individual and his children must be sealed for time and
eternity. If this sealing was performed, he taught, the covenant
relationship would then continue throughout eternity. The
Prophet taught, moreover, that such a patriarchal priesthood of
kings and priests would have to be established by sealing
children and parents back through Abraham to Adam in order to
fulfill the mission of Elijah (Malachi 4:5-6). When this was
accomplished, the order within the highest degree of the
Celestial Kingdom would then be eternally set. Probably no
clearer statement of Joseph’s theology regarding this concept
can be found than what is given in an editorial by Orson Hyde.
The following diagram began the editorial after which came the
text.) [page 298]
endquote
As far as I know the Doctrine and Covenants is still canonized scripture and its part of the
on-the-ground theological package. We still beieve in section 107:17-54, and Section 84:6ff.
Though I agree that some things may have been deemphasized to the point where they have disappeared. The Patriarch to the church being one case in point.
We still believe that certain lineages have a right to the priesthood and that certain priesthoods may be passed from Father to Son within the chosen seed. All of God’s children of course may now have access to the church through baptism and to the Priesthood through
endowment and sealing and higher ordinances.
Comment 4 is relevant here. My point was that
sealing is not merely to connect the natural lineage its also to adopt us throgh Joseph into the lineage of the Fathers in the Priesthood
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Just as all must become Abraham’s children to belong to the house of Israel,
all in this dispensation must become Joseph’s children to enter the holiest order of the Priesthood.
So if you have any records of adoptions to Joseph including Journal accounts please pass them on to me.
kind regards,
Randall Larsen
Law of Adoption
Roasted Tomatoes, J. Staplely, listmembers,
quote
Wilford Woodruff did not abandon adoption entirely he merely suggested that we shouldn’t neglect our own lines:
We want the Latter-day Saints from this time to trace their genealogies as far as they can, and to be sealed to their fathers and mothers. Have children sealed to their parents, and run this chain through as far as you can get it. When you get to the end, let the last man be adopted to Joseph Smith, who stands at the head of the dispensation. Brian Stuy Collected Discourses, April 8, 1894. Wilford Woodruff.
endquote
Evidence that Brigham was adopted to Joseph Smith includes this statement by J.D. Lee:
quote
> ***
> Brigham Young had been ’sealed’ to Joseph under this law; now he in
> turn had some thirty-eight young men sealed to him.
> “Of this number, John D. Lee was second…. All of the men thus
> joined in the covenant seemed brothers in one sense, and for some of
> them Lee developed a genuine affection. Among others jealousies grew
> up as they competed for favor.
> “In the same way, Lee had eighteen or nineteen young men with their
> wives adopted to him… He often spoke of them as George Laub Lee,
> W.B. Owens Lee, Miles Anderson Lee, James Pace Lee, Allen Weeks Lee,
> William Swap Lee.” (John D. Lee Zealot–Pioneer–Builder–Scapegoat,
> page 73)
endquote
Bernhisel’s adoption to Joseph. Mote the ceremony is similar but not exactly the same as sealing of children born before a couple is sealed.
quote
[February 3, 1846] Tyrone, Cumberland Co. Pennsylvania this day came to the sacred Alter in the upper room of the “House of the Lord” founded by Prest. Joseph Smith (Martyred) the Prophet Seer and Revelator to the church and there upon gave himself to Prest. Joseph Smith (martyred) to become his son by the law of adoption and to become a legal heir to all the blessings bestowed upon Joseph Smith pertaining to exaltations even to the eternal Godhead with a solemn covenant to observe all the rights & ordinances pertaining to the new & everlasting covenant as far as now is or shall hereafter be made known unto him done in the presence of Patriarch John Smith, Pres. Brigham Young Heber C. Kimbal, Amasa Lyman, 0. Hyde & George A. Smith at 4 0. clock P.M. (Journal History, 3 February 1846: John Milton Bernhisel)
endquote
As you can see part of the blessing of the advanced ordinance of adoption is to inherit the same blessings that Joseph inherits.
I will post the quote about adoption being performed in a higher room than sealings later.
See these quotes cited in Irving’s Paper:
Journal of Discourses 10:254, 12:161-67, 16:186-89; Millennial Star 27 (1865):771, 31 (1869):203-04.
kind regards,
randall larsen
Roasted Tomatoes,
Just two more sources. Brigham Young on “we have to have a temple to seal men to men [or to adopt children to their parents].” And as source for the notion that adoption is a capstone ordinance since it takes place in a room higher than the room in which sealings of women to men take place(and also the room in which 2nd anointings take place). These sources were both included in the twisted Metro article you linked to:
quote
The sealing of men to men actually was a more sacred principle than Celestial Marriage, according to Brigham Young. In a discourse Young gave on September 4, 1873, he said, “We can seal women to men, but not men to men without a Temple.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, p. 186).
A sermon by Brigham Young, reported by John Read, in a letter to one of his wives, revealed that Young referred to some future time “when men would be sealed to men in the priesthood in a more solemn ordinance than that by which women were sealed to men, and in a room over that in which women were sealed to man in the temple of the Lord.”
endquote
After one’s election is made sure throught the fulness of the priesthood ordinance there remains one thing to do before one can take the spiral path to exaltation. One’s place must be set in the patriarchal order sealed back through Joseph to the Fathers in the priesthood named in D&C 84:6ff.
kind regards,
Randall Larsen
Randall, the quotes you mention come from the period when Brigham Young was discouraging people from acting on the Law of Adoption. It’s possible that Brigham Young was stating a policy that had always been in place, but it’s also possible that he was using this policy as a way of maintaining the suspension of the practice of adoption in the wake of the practical difficulties that it caused in the 1840s. This second perspective is particularly appealing in light of the fact that the Endowment House was used for second anointings. (The ranking of adoption and second anointing ordinances is difficult; there are fragments of evidence, which you point to, that adoption ranked as more sacred. However, adoption was a far more widely practiced ordinance–suggesting that it was in fact a lesser one.)
A last comment: not everything in the Doctrine and Covenants is actually taught in correlated church lessons and other theological discussions. Joseph Smith’s original words may well contain the pure truth on these themes–but as a matter of practical experience, many such doctrines are simply not a part of most Mormons’ religious experience. As such, I think it’s fair to say that we’ve implicitly moved away from them.
I really enjoyed your podcast. Serenity’s laugh is just amazing
and the talk on the law of adoption is a great introduction to this important topic.
A little more attention could be given though to the position of Joseph Smith as the head of God’s family in his dispensation. In 1836, with most of the apostolic organization ready, Joseph received in the Kirtland temple priesthood keys to restore the patriarchal structure that existed in the early days of the earth. Receiving the gospel of Abraham, he would also qualify to be a “father of the faithful” for the saints of his own generation, in similitude of what Abraham was himself, in a very literal sense.
Your explanation of the adoption, as related to temple work for the dead, misses the point that dead ancestors could be sealed as one’s posterity. I think you focused too much on the proeminent members of the church, mainly apostles, increasing the size of their families through adoption, ignoring the fact that every worthy member could administer the ordinances for his dead and adopt them as his posterity. That was how being “saviours in Mount Zion” was then interpretated. After all, being parents in eternity means being Gods to their own children. So the question behind this practice was, how can one who is being saved rule over his/her saviour?
As Randall pointed out above, WW dind’t completely end the practice of adoption. What he did was to reverse the order of sealings, following the natural genealogy, but kept the idea of linking the family unit into Joseph’s royal family.
Moreover, WW also kept the original criteria of worthiness for administering the ordinances, which were not different from those required from the living. No murder, for example, would ever receive baptism and be connected into the priesthood chain. I am not aware of the church giving this kind of orientation nowadays.
Another approach of the law of adoption could also relate its interruption to the necessity of quitting the patriarchal system based on plural marriage and adoption in return to Utah statehood. The original practice of adoption, could be seen by the US as a parallel government, as it was in fact part of building a patriarchal family kingdom in the Rocky Mountains.
Just my 2 cents.
Antonio
New MOVIE ‘SEPTEMBER DAWN’ viewer beware >
it’ makes president B YOUNG’ look rather like
a madman that ordered the Mountain Meadow Mass>
it’s said that the actor in that role was patterned after old Captain Ahab from MOBEY DICK
Gregory Peck . ANY BODY HERE have any questions
after seeing the movie.