Temple adoptions were part of LDS evolution toward genealogy work

The majority of faithful Latter-day Saints who engage in temple work for the dead probably have never heard of the Law of Adoption. Yet, for roughly a half century, until 116 years ago, it was the forerunner of today’s large-scale church temple ordinances for the deceased, which are considered sacred and necessary in the LDS Church for afterlife progression.

Gordon Irving, then associate historian for the LDS Church, wrote a fascinating piece for the spring 1974 issue of BYU Studies. Titled, “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830-1900,” Irving explains that in 1830, the genesis of the church, “early members appear to have accepted the traditional Christian view of a heaven for the righteous and a hell for the wicked.”

That would change soon. By 1832, Irving writes, the prophet Joseph Smith had published revelation that there were three separate kingdoms of glory within heaven, or salvation; furthermore, the kingdom assigned a person depended on his or her good works. At this time, the Mormon concept of hell evolved into a place called “sons of perdition,” which was restricted to very few.

The concept of eternal salvation would continue to evolve for more than half a century. Irving explains that an aspect of LDS belief that attracted many converts was its claim of authority to act in God’s name. While Smith assured Saints via revelation that “All who have died without a knowledge of this Gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom,” many wondered how a deceased loved one could attain the celestial kingdon without baptism. The solution, according to Smith, was baptism for the dead.

However, Smith’s 1843 revelation dividing the celestial kingdom into three degrees asserted that family ties, extending back to Adam, were essential to achieving exaltation, or the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. The “way to do this,” explained Smith later, was through celestial marriage in a temple. Through celestial marriage, the doctrine goes, earth’s families could be linked to a chain of family that began to Adam and subsequently, become “heirs of exaltation.”

But the exaltation doctrine created concerns that persons would attain the celestial kingdom but not its highest level because they could not link their family chains to a proper priesthood authority extending to Adam.

A solution to that dilemma was that prominent church members could be grafted — through ordination by the prophet — to the patriarchal order — thereby allowing them to “adopt as children” members of the church. This is a key reason early church members, such as John D. Lee, are often referred to as “adopted sons” of Brigham Young, or Heber C. Kimball, or other apostles.

Although Irvine says it’s unclear if adoptions occurred before Smith died, they were common when Brigham Young became prophet. In fact, there were plans to even start settlements with “adopted” families of Young, Kimball, John Taylor, Willard Richards, and other prominent LDS apostles.

According to Irvine’s article, some of the early apostles even pitched themselves and advertised for “children to adopt.” Irvine writes, “Apostle George A. Lee Smith admitted in February, 1847, that he had lextioneered” with all his might to get people to join him.” These “adopted” families would meet for conferences with counsel from Young, Kimball, and social events such as dances.

Within several years, though, adoptions had fallen out of favor. Human nature was a key reason. Like real families, adopted siblings tended to quarrel. Irvine recounts feuds between Lee and other of Young’s adopted children. Other examples include adopted childen — grown men — worried they would be subordinate to their “adopted fathers” in the celestial Kingdon. Other adopted “children” believed they could be supported by their “fathers.” Prophet Young, writes Irvine, wryly noted in 1847 “that he hoped the day would come when his adopted children would ‘have to provide temporal blessings for me instead of my boarding from 40 to 50 persons as I do now …’”

In the 1870s, the construction of a temple in St. George, Utah, renewed interest in adoption. New rules were established for the ordinance. One allowed deceased non-member husbands of women members to be adopted. Another allowed members more choice in who they could choose as an adopted father. As a result of the temples being away from Salt Lake City, many members chose deceased apostles to adopt them, because a proxy could be used.

Eventually, the second phase of adoptions failed to satisfy members as well. Many were distressed at the strict rules allowing only one generation beyond baptism to be adopted. Church members who had traced their ancestry much further, writes Irvine, were upset those ancestors would not have the fulness of the Gospel. Others groused that the adoption doctrine was still too complex and difficult to understand.

Adoption ended via — once again — a revelation. In 1894, Church Prophet Wilford Woodruff announced that all children would be “adopted to his (or her) father.” He further said, “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 the chain as far as you can get it.”

President Woodruff detailed the revelation as additions from the Lord to what Joseph Smith hard originally received. This, Irvine explains, fits with the Mormon concept of continuous revelation, “line upon line, precept upon precept,”

Woodruff’s revelation was very popular, and remains so today. It’s no coincidence that the Mormons’ now iconic interest in geneology work increased at that time.

There were still kinks to be worked out. Church leaders took pains to assure anxious members that adoption/sealing to a parent was as valid as one to an apostle. Also, the 13,000-plus Saints who had been adopted by Young, Kimball, and the others were a dilemma. As Irvine writes, Church leaders let God sort it out, directing these members to be sealed to their parents while keeping their former “adoptions” in church records.

From the column: The majority of faithful Latter-day Saints who engage in temple work for the dead probably have never heard of the Law of Adoption. Yet, for roughly a half century, until 116 years ago, it was the forerunner of today’s large-scale church temple ordinances for the deceased, which are considered sacred and necessary in the LDS Church for afterlife progression. Gordon Irving, then associate historian for the LDS Church, wrote a fascinating piece for the spring 1974 issue of BYU Studies. Titled, “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830-1900,” Irving explains that in 1830, the genesis of the church, “early members appear to have accepted the traditional Christian view of a heaven for the righteous and a hell for the wicked.” That would change soon. By 1832, Irving writes, the prophet Joseph Smith had published revelation that there were three separate kingdoms of glory within heaven, or salvation; furthermore, the kingdom assigned a person depended on his or her good works. At this time, the Mormon concept of hell evolved into a place called “sons of perdition,” which was restricted to very few.

You know, if it was just "evolving" doctrine per se, that'd be still understandable...but when you consider these were no low-level doctrines -- that it covered heaven & salvation matters -- and that none of these things were revealed in the Book of Mormon, already touted to be the "fulness of the everlasting gospel"...you then realize these things fall outside even the Mormon gospel version!

Seekers of truth,

If you peruse the Free Republic religion forums you will notice a pattern. There's an anti-Mormon group of people here that spends a great deal of their time attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They post regurgitated propaganda on an almost daily basis.

They have a misguided obsession. You can witness many different tactics employed that you might find quite interesting. The straw man argument is a big favorite and is frequently preceded by cherry-picking quotes or other material. After the "quotation" the attacker will misrepresent what has been said or what was meant and then attack their own interpretation.Later they will have the audacity to claim they were "only" quoting our own material.

They will of course insist ad nauseum that they are merely using our sources and are therefore innocent of any deceptive practice. LDS persons have no issue whatsoever having our scriptures or leaders quoted as long as it is presented fairly and accurately. This is rarely (if ever) done.

Another favorite is posting scripture or statements which on their own really present no dilemma. They make something out of nothing while never bringing up a single objection that hasn't been addressed a hundred times before.

You might note a couple of other tactics used to try to antagonize is the use of disrespectful or insulting terms or language and/or pictures. That's a Christlike thing to do right? Yeah I don't think so either. It does speak volumes about them though.

Some of them claim being some sort of special witness to you as being supposedly former Mormons. So someone who is an ex-member of any organization would never have an axe to grind or have reason to try to justify their actions by any means? Perhaps not but perhaps so. The LDS Church gains members from other denominations as well as others faiths all the time. This doesn't make them an expert on anything and you certainly won't hear them attacking their former Church.

Frequently they cruise the headlines of the day seeking any story that might be twisted into making the Church look bad. Anything will do, just watch the progression of posts following it and see what I mean.

After reading their posts, I invite you to seek the truth about whatever "issue" they seem to be "revealing" or "exposing". I promise that if you do so with honest intent, the "ahah" moments you will have will be many and frequent. You will start to recognize the tactics employed to cleverly twist and attack and will likely chuckle the more you see. In actuality, there's nothing new here. It's all been addressed many times before.

The latest twist in the anti-Mormon propaganda machine is to actually go to the links provided, but then they cherry pick what they want, quote and straw man attack that. Almost without fail you will see examples of this following this post.

Clever. It almost appears that they are helping you out by doing some footwork for you. Not so much. Don't be insulted, look for yourself. It's not the haystack they want you to think. So again, seek the truth. They aren't providing it. Use your God-given brain and discernment.

Here's a few links to get your started from a different viewpoint. I have found that the vast majority of the "issues" brought up can be found and addressed at http://www.fairlds.org/ but here's more:

http://scriptures.lds.org/
http://www.lds.org
http://www.fairlds.org/
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/index.html
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml
http://www.answeringantimormons.com/index.htm
http://promormon.blogspot.com/

Now you will likely notice the "you never address or answer our points" posts pop up as usual. All after providing the answers just as you have here.

Sometimes it is claimed that these sites present a needle in a haystack. Far from it. But if you give up before you try you won't know will you? They often state that these sites provide no answer. They just don't want you looking. It is as simple as that.

Will you wear blinders too? Seek truth. Find out for yourself. Want to chat with someone on any topic? A few of these sites provide just that. So do your homework sincere seeker of truth. Listen and read from both "sides". Make up your own mind.

I witness to you of these truths and wish you the best, in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

Seekers of Truth, If you peruse the Free Republic religion furms you will notice a pattern. there's a Mormon group of people here that spents a great deal of their time promoting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They post regurgitated propaganda on an almost daily basis. They have a misguided obsession. You can witness many different tactics employed that you might find quite interesting. The straw man argument is a big favorite and is frequently preceded by cherry-picking quotes or other material. After the "quotation" the promote will misrepresent what has been said or what was meant and then attack their own interpretation. Later they will have the audacity to claim they were "only" quoting their own material. They will of course insist ad nauseum that they are merely using their sources and are therefore innocent of any deceptive practice. Christian persons have no issue whatsoever having members of other faiths enter the marketplace of ideas as long as it is presented fairly and accurately. This is rarely (if ever) done. Another favorite is posting scripture or statements which on their own really present no dilemma. They make something out of nothing while never bringing up a single false doctrine that hasn't been addressed a hundred times before. You might note a couple of other tactics used to try to antagonize is the use of the censorship button the minute they begin to lose the argument. That's a Christlike thing to do right? Yeah I don't think so either. It does speak volumes about them though. Some of them claim being some sort of special witness to you as followers of a polygamous New Yorker who found some golden plates. Some used to be Christians. So someone who is an ex-member of any organization would never have an axe to grind or have reason to try to justify their actions by any means? Perhaps not but perhaps so. Christianity gains members from other denominations as well as others faiths all the time. This doesn't make them an expert on anything and you certainly won't hear them admitting anything positive about their former religion. Frequently they cruise the headlines of the day seeking any story that might be twisted into making Mormonism look good. Anything will do, just watch the progression of posts following it and see what I mean. After reading their posts, I invite you to seek the truth about whatever "issue" they seem to be "revealing" or "exposing". I promise that if you do so with a thorough study of the Holy Bible, the "ahah" moments you will have will be many and frequent. You will start to recognize the tactics employed to cleverly twist and attack and will likely chuckle the more you see. In actuality, there's nothing new here. It's all been addressed many times before. The latest twist in the Mormon propaganda machine is to provide links which misrepresent and distort their point of view in an effort to gain more converts. Clever. It almost appears that they are helping you out by doing some footwork for you. Not so much. Don't be insulted, look for yourself. It's not the haystack they want you to think. So again, seek the truth. They aren't providing it. Use your God-given brain and discernment. Here's a thorough link to get you started: http://www.saintsalive.com/ Will you wear blinders too? Seek truth. Find out for yourself. Want to chat with someone on any topic? A few of these sites provide just that. So do your homework sincere seeker of truth. Listen and read from both "sides". Make up your own mind. I witness to you of these truths and wish you the best, in the name of the real Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (not the spirit brother of Satan). Amen.

Just curious ... did you ever figure out who the God of Jesus Christ is? (ie. John 20:17)

Teppe: Just curious..did ya ever figure out who is...
...the God of Thomas?
...the alleged "god" of the Book of Mormon Nephite disciples?
...your god, Teppe?

And now for the answers:
Jesus is the God of...
...Thomas (John 20:28)
...the alleged God of the Nephite disciples (3 Nephi 19:18) says Jesus is their "Lord and God" -- But, Teppe, if Jesus is NOT THE God...just "a" I guess those Nephite disciples had more than one god, didn't they?
...you? Is Jesus your God, Teppe?

If you say, "No" Heavenly Father is my God...then what do you do with...
...D&C 62:1: ...saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, your advocate...??

Since there’s only one true God in the bible and in the LDS scriptures (for example, Pearl of Great Price says "no God besides me" (1:6), either Jesus is a false god or the one true God. As Jesus Christ is a God to Thomas (John 20:28) -- so Thomas has two gods?

Yes, apparently you've had more than one god...and nobody bothered to tell you, eh, Teppe?

Joseph Smith, D&C 19:1-4:

1I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. 2I, having accomplished and finished the will of him whose I am, even the Father, concerning me—having done this that I might subdue all things unto myself— 3Retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment, which I shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, judging every man according to his works and the deeds which he hath done. 4And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

So your "jesus" even says "I...Christ the Lord" (v. 1) and
"I...of whose I am, even the Father" (v. 2)
"I shall pass...[judgment]" (v. 3)
then suddenly announces, "I, God, am endless." (v. 4)

Now, on to your question:

Tell us, Teppe: Who raised Jesus from the dead?

You might say, Heavenly Father. And you would be right. The apostle Paul mentions that God raised Him at least 8 times. The writer of Hebrews does. Peter does. Luke in the book of Acts does about 11 times. We have about a couple of dozen NT references about God's direct role in raising Jesus from the dead.

But what if I told you that Jesus prophesied that HE would raise Himself by His power? He prophesied that in John 2:19-21; and He did so again in John 10:17-18 -- that He had the power to take up His life again.

And what if I told you that the Holy Spirit rose Jesus from the dead? The apostle Paul tells us that in Romans 8:11.

Teppe, we could pick over 100 different attributes and roles of the divine Trinity, and all three are so described by the Bible and so involved -- 3-as-1 'cause He is 3-in-1. You, separating them, must find a way to reconcile how the same actions are accorded to each.

The one who believes God is tri-unity does not!

So, your "lesson" for the day: Who rose Jesus from the dead?
The Holy Spirit? (Yup. Romans 8:11)
Jesus -- if He doesn't falsely prophesy, that is? (Yup. John 2:19-21; John 10:17-18)
God? (Yup. Numerous verses)

Therefore, if God served His Son Jesus as "God-like" by raising Him from the dead, so what does that prove to a tri-unitarian? Nothing except it glorifies God. But if the Holy Spirit raised God, uh oh for the Mormon. Why that's a Mormon contradiction.

You know, even the D&C mentions both God and Jesus as co-creators. Does that mean you have two creators?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.