Comments on: I Have Even More Questions, 1894

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:36:44 +0000

I think it was George F. Richards who spoke in General Conference about having to raise his right arm to the square and make a covenant before being baptized.

RE: Adoption, I don’t think we are as far a part as it might seem, Ardis. You are absolutely right that frequently all child-to-parent sealings, even for biological kin, were called “adoptions.” It is just that before the 1894 revelation, they didn’t perform child to parent sealings for dead people who didn’t belong to the church (beyond one generation).

By: Tom O.

Tom O. — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:24:29 +0000

Re: adoption vs. sealing, I think you are right on, Ardis. I submit for illustration my own example, where I not having been born in the covenant, was later sealed to my mother and step-father–effectively a spiritual adoption.

By: The Other Clark

The Other Clark — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:56:36 +0000

Thanks for the context. I knew about WW’s revelation, but didn’t know where it fell chronologically in relation to this series of questions.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:53:52 +0000

I seem to be the odd one out on this issue, Curt. J. Stapley and Sam Brown would agree with you, I think, based on their recent work. I, however, am not convinced that the “law of adoption” was ever anything truly distinct from the present practice. I think the label “law of adoption” applies to our current practice, because we each need to be adopted into the family of God either through being born in the covenant or through a later sealing to parents. Rather than being a separate ordinance or law, the practice of sealing someone to a church leader was merely an early, imperfect attempt to practice an incompletely understood principle. We understand it better since Wilford Woodruff’s correction, but it’s the same ordinance. We just call it “sealing” now instead of “adoption” — its purpose is identical.

Read that way, this answer would be equally valid ten years before it was given, or ten years after.

But read as if the “law of adoption” were something other than the sealing practice, read as if it were something that ended in 1894, this is a peculiar reference.

By: CurtA

CurtA — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:34:39 +0000

It is interesting to see the answer pertaining to the Law of Adoption. In April of the same year (1894), President Woodruff effectively repealed the Law of Adoption, ending the practice of members being sealed to Church leaders instead of to their own parents. It seems that this answer was given after President Woodruff’s declaration.