Born under the covenant?

[RubinHighlander]

I had a thought the other day about the 2,000 striplings warriors, how their parents made a covenant not to kill people, even in defense of their own lives, but their sons had not, so they were okay to run off and kill a bunch of Laminates, in defense of their lives and freedom, etc.

I thought of the temple covenant to sacrifice your own life in defense of the church/corporation.

Then I thought of the situation I had with my adopted step daughter, where we wanted to take her to the temple to have her sealed to me, only to be shut down by the SP because he said because she was born under her mom's covenant, she was already sealed to me because I was sealed to her mom. Now the bio dad was not even a member, nor was my DW a temple recommend holder at the time she was born, so I'm not sure why the SP felt it was necessary to deny us the opportunity to go and do the sealing. Especially where most of the temple work is recycled names anyway...

Back to my stripling warrior thought and the connection to my daughter being under the covenant. It might be a stretch here, but I thought that if the current policy with adoption in my situation insinuates that my daughter is automagically under the covenant, then the stripling kids would automagically be under their parents covenant they made to not kill anyone? I guess it's just all a matter of convenience. There's a lot of screwy crap when it comes to how the COB and local leaders make decisions over the eternal destinies of their TBMs. But whatever mistakes are made by men and prophets, will all be sorted out in the millennium, says the NOM in the most sarcastic tone he can muster.

[MoPag]

There's a lot of screwy crap when it comes to how the COB and local leaders make decisions over the eternal destinies of their TBMs. But whatever mistakes are made by men and prophets, will all be sorted out in the millennium, says the NOM in the most sarcastic tone he can muster.

They really like to throw their "power" and "authority" around, but they really don't give a crap about the people who are affected by it.

[didyoumythme]

The church handbook of instructions is the most correct book on earth! Handbook scripture trumps all other scripture.

[Give It Time]

I would get a second opinion on this.

Here goes my guess.

In order for a child to be born in the covenant, it needs to have both parents be members and married and sealed in the temple, before that child is born. If the bio dad was not a member, then your daughter was not born under the covenant. Taking this further, your wife probably can't have children sealed to her independently. My guess is if your daughter was born under any covenant, it was under your wife's parents' covenant if they were sealed in the temple. Even more guessing, because I'm sure this isn't written anywhere and we can guess anything we want. If your wife's first husband were a member and they were sealed in the temple, then your daughter would have been born under that covenant and your daughter would be sealed to her bio dad. Even if the sealing between the husband and wife is cancelled, the man probably is the one who gets the children.

I have wrestled with this one, for a long time. My parents won't be together in the CK. It won't even be offered to my father. I heard my mother say on many occasions that marriage isn't for everyone and I'm very sure she would turn down the option to be married in the eternities. When I shared this with someone in my ward, she was thoroughly scandalized and asked me if I didn't want to be with my mother in the eternities. WTF? It's my mother choosing, not me. Whatever.

That's what triggered my thinking about this.

The celestial kingdom is patriarchal and it was conceived during a time when women were property. They had no rights. So, when the question of where will the kids go, in the situation where the parents aren't sealed, they would go with the father. If there is no father and no father will be stepping in, my guess is they go to the father of the mother, because a woman is her father's property until she's married and then she becomes her husband's property.

Does this make sense?

So, check her member record to see if she is listed as born under the covenant. If it says she is, you can leave it at that, if you want, but I would start asking questions. If it's possible for children to be born under the covenant when the parents aren't sealed, then it kind of eliminates a lot of the reason for temple marriage. In fact, I'd open my questioning with what determines a child being born under the covenant and let them walk into their own trap, not that you're setting a trap for them, you just want to seal your step-daughter to you.

You know how, when we don't know the answer to a question like this, we say these things will all be worked out in the eternities? I think you, your wife and your daughter deserve a solid answer on this one.

[Give It Time]

As for the Stripling warriors, if I had made a covenant not to take up arms and my sons took up arms on my behalf to fight my battle, I'd break my covenant. I think it's immoral to send your children in to fight your battles unless your are physically incapable. I don't care what the excuse is. I think Heavenly Father would agree with me. At least, the God I worship doesn't believe in letting me be a lame-assed parent.

[Thoughtful]

I would get a second opinion on this.

Here goes my guess.

In order for a child to be born in the covenant, it needs to have both parents be members and married and sealed in the temple, before that child is born. If the bio dad was not a member, then your daughter was not born under the covenant. Taking this further, your wife probably can't have children sealed to her independently. My guess is if your daughter was born under any covenant, it was under your wife's parents' covenant if they were sealed in the temple. Even more guessing, because I'm sure this isn't written anywhere and we can guess anything we want. If your wife's first husband were a member and they were sealed in the temple, then your daughter would have been born under that covenant and your daughter would be sealed to her bio dad. Even if the sealing between the husband and wife is cancelled, the man probably is the one who gets the children.

I have wrestled with this one, for a long time. My parents won't be together in the CK. It won't even be offered to my father. I heard my mother say on many occasions that marriage isn't for everyone and I'm very sure she would turn down the option to be married in the eternities. When I shared this with someone in my ward, she was thoroughly scandalized and asked me if I didn't want to be with my mother in the eternities. WTF? It's my mother choosing, not me. Whatever.

That's what triggered my thinking about this.

The celestial kingdom is patriarchal and it was conceived during a time when women were property. They had no rights. So, when the question of where will the kids go, in the situation where the parents aren't sealed, they would go with the father. If there is no father and no father will be stepping in, my guess is they go to the father of the mother, because a woman is her father's property until she's married and then she becomes her husband's property.

Does this make sense?

So, check her member record to see if she is listed as born under the covenant. If it says she is, you can leave it at that, if you want, but I would start asking questions. If it's possible for children to be born under the covenant when the parents aren't sealed, then it kind of eliminates a lot of the reason for temple marriage. In fact, I'd open my questioning with what determines a child being born under the covenant and let them walk into their own trap, not that you're setting a trap for them, you just want to seal your step-daughter to you.

You know how, when we don't know the answer to a question like this, we say these things will all be worked out in the eternities? I think you, your wife and your daughter deserve a solid answer on this one.

Since JS loved to recreate the old testament, I think of sealings are real there's a fair probability children are connected through matrilineal lines as they are in Jewish families. Marriage was probably established in the first place to connect men to families (erm, they would say, "to legitimize children" aka slut shame women who don't attach themselves and their cistern to a man). Before marriage was a thing, women had babies but the men who protected them were uncles and grandparents, rather than fathers. Marriage does more for men than women.... it's only because of systems of oppression (Like being deemed property) that women ever benefited from marriage at all.


I don't doubt that BY would have announced babies go with dad. Cuz he was a prick like that. But, just like creation of the world did not happen without feminine, children don't survive in the wild without mothers. I believe children are "sealed" to their mothers via blood at birth (if we want to speculate about blood sacrifice, at least would make sense -ish). Mom's have skin in the game.... anyway... Just muttering aloud.

[Give It Time]

I would get a second opinion on this.

Here goes my guess.

In order for a child to be born in the covenant, it needs to have both parents be members and married and sealed in the temple, before that child is born. If the bio dad was not a member, then your daughter was not born under the covenant. Taking this further, your wife probably can't have children sealed to her independently. My guess is if your daughter was born under any covenant, it was under your wife's parents' covenant if they were sealed in the temple. Even more guessing, because I'm sure this isn't written anywhere and we can guess anything we want. If your wife's first husband were a member and they were sealed in the temple, then your daughter would have been born under that covenant and your daughter would be sealed to her bio dad. Even if the sealing between the husband and wife is cancelled, the man probably is the one who gets the children.

I have wrestled with this one, for a long time. My parents won't be together in the CK. It won't even be offered to my father. I heard my mother say on many occasions that marriage isn't for everyone and I'm very sure she would turn down the option to be married in the eternities. When I shared this with someone in my ward, she was thoroughly scandalized and asked me if I didn't want to be with my mother in the eternities. WTF? It's my mother choosing, not me. Whatever.

That's what triggered my thinking about this.

The celestial kingdom is patriarchal and it was conceived during a time when women were property. They had no rights. So, when the question of where will the kids go, in the situation where the parents aren't sealed, they would go with the father. If there is no father and no father will be stepping in, my guess is they go to the father of the mother, because a woman is her father's property until she's married and then she becomes her husband's property.

Does this make sense?

So, check her member record to see if she is listed as born under the covenant. If it says she is, you can leave it at that, if you want, but I would start asking questions. If it's possible for children to be born under the covenant when the parents aren't sealed, then it kind of eliminates a lot of the reason for temple marriage. In fact, I'd open my questioning with what determines a child being born under the covenant and let them walk into their own trap, not that you're setting a trap for them, you just want to seal your step-daughter to you.

You know how, when we don't know the answer to a question like this, we say these things will all be worked out in the eternities? I think you, your wife and your daughter deserve a solid answer on this one.

Since JS loved to recreate the old testament, I think of sealings are real there's a fair probability children are connected through matrilineal lines as they are in Jewish families. Marriage was probably established in the first place to connect men to families (erm, they would say, "to legitimize children" aka slut shame women who don't attach themselves and their cistern to a man). Before marriage was a thing, women had babies but the men who protected them were uncles and grandparents, rather than fathers. Marriage does more for men than women.... it's only because of systems of oppression (Like being deemed property) that women ever benefited from marriage at all.


I don't doubt that BY would have announced babies go with dad. Cuz he was a prick like that. But, just like creation of the world did not happen without feminine, children don't survive in the wild without mothers. I believe children are "sealed" to their mothers via blood at birth (if we want to speculate about blood sacrifice, at least would make sense -ish). Mom's have skin in the game.... anyway... Just muttering aloud.

Interesting mutterings and good points. I know the Jewish tradition is the the right to rule, and the inheriting that right is the man's. The land to rule goes through the woman. That's badly phrased, but a Jewish man can sire a child with a shiksa goddess and that child will not be Jewish. A woman can have a child by a man who is not Jewish and that child will be Jewish. The identity goes through the mother.

However, everything I hear in the church and witness by the way it is run. Everything in hear and see in the temple tells me women are property in the eternities.

To the OP. I happen to think the ceremony of sealing a child to parents is one of our most beautiful ceremonies. It sounds like your wife wasn't ever sealed to your daughter's father. It's my understanding there is no possible way your daughter could have been born in the covenant. Just saying that last bit one more time. Your daughter also deserves a better answer than we don't know or these things will be worked out during the millennium.

[el-asherah]

Since JS loved to recreate the old testament, I think of sealings are real there's a fair probability children are connected through matrilineal lines as they are in Jewish families. Marriage was probably established in the first place to connect men to families (erm, they would say, "to legitimize children" aka slut shame women who don't attach themselves and their cistern to a man).

Just to be clear Joseph Smith was never sealed to his parents or children during his lifetime, and Emma was not the first wife Joseph was sealed to (Emma was the 13th to 23th wife, depending on the historian).

The modern concept of a "temple sealing ordinance" is required to be with your family forever did not exist during Joseph Smith's lifetime. Family sealings developed later in the Utah period to justify the temple and move it beyond polygamy. During Joseph Smith's lifetime, sealings meant 1) plural marriage, and 2) baptism for the dead. Baptism for the dead meant your loved ones were sealed up to Christ and would by definition be with you in heaven.

[RubinHighlander]

The celestial kingdom is patriarchal and it was conceived during a time when women were property. They had no rights.

Nailed it!

Did they remove the part in the ceremony yet where the women have to veil their faces? What a bunch of BS!

[Thoughtful]

Since JS loved to recreate the old testament, I think of sealings are real there's a fair probability children are connected through matrilineal lines as they are in Jewish families. Marriage was probably established in the first place to connect men to families (erm, they would say, "to legitimize children" aka slut shame women who don't attach themselves and their cistern to a man).

Just to be clear Joseph Smith was never sealed to his parents or children during his lifetime, and Emma was not the first wife Joseph was sealed to (Emma was the 13th to 23th wife, depending on the historian).

The modern concept of a "temple sealing ordinance" is required to be with your family forever did not exist during Joseph Smith's lifetime. Family sealings developed later in the Utah period to justify the temple and move it beyond polygamy. During Joseph Smith's lifetime, sealings meant 1) plural marriage, and 2) baptism for the dead. Baptism for the dead meant your loved ones were sealed up to Christ and would by definition be with you in heaven.

Not entirely though...JS sealed even some men to himself through the "law of adoption" too, these were not marriages.

My comments about marriage are not about "marriage in the church"... but about the history of marriage as a social institution. Men controlling women to control their fertility, etc. Marriage among human beings was not "instituted by God" at the dawn of mankind. It came later, after agrarian societies formed and children became commodities for financial success.

[el-asherah]

My comments about marriage are not about "marriage in the church"... but about the history of marriage as a social institution. Men controlling women to control their fertility, etc.

I agree with your comments about the history of men controlling women to control their fertility, sorry I implied otherwise.

Not entirely though...JS sealed even some men to himself through the "law of adoption" too, these were not marriages.

Not according to the history, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_ad ... Mormonism), which states - "There is no surviving evidence that the "law of adoption" sealing practice was taught by Joseph Smith or his contemporaries prior to Smith's death in 1844. However, adoptions appeared on the records of the Nauvoo Temple in 1846, and scholars generally assume that the practice was instituted by Brigham Young."

Joseph Smith was later sealed by the "Law of Adoption" to other men after his death.

[Thoughtful]

My comments about marriage are not about "marriage in the church"... but about the history of marriage as a social institution. Men controlling women to control their fertility, etc.

I agree with your comments about the history of men controlling women to control their fertility, sorry I implied otherwise.

Not entirely though...JS sealed even some men to himself through the "law of adoption" too, these were not marriages.

Not according to the history, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_ad ... Mormonism), which states - "There is no surviving evidence that the "law of adoption" sealing practice was taught by Joseph Smith or his contemporaries prior to Smith's death in 1844. However, adoptions appeared on the records of the Nauvoo Temple in 1846, and scholars generally assume that the practice was instituted by Brigham Young."

Joseph Smith was later sealed by the "Law of Adoption" to other men after his death.

An article concerning the law of adoption appeared in the Mormon Church's publication The Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star, June, 1843, Vol. 4, pages 17-19. LDS historian Gordon Irving, stated that while, "No consensus exists with regard to the date when the first adoptions were performed... It is certainly probable, that Joseph Smith did initiate certain trusted leaders into the adoptionary order as early as 1842." (Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1974, page 295)

[el-asherah]

An article concerning the law of adoption appeared in the Mormon Church's publication The Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star, June, 1843, Vol. 4, pages 17-19. LDS historian Gordon Irving, stated that while, "No consensus exists with regard to the date when the first adoptions were performed... It is certainly probable, that Joseph Smith did initiate certain trusted leaders into the adoptionary order as early as 1842." (Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1974, page 295)

Even though the Parley P. Pratt Millennial Star, June, 1843, Vol. 4, pages 17-19 article is titled "Law of Adoption" no where in the article does it describe sealings to other men or people, or a temple ordinance, or any of the practices associated with the "Law of Adoption" as it was performed in Utah or in the Nauvoo temple after Joseph's death.

The 1843 Millennial Star article by Parley P Pratt is describing being "adopted" as Sons of God and gaining a birth right through the process of Baptism (Law of Adoption).

Take this excerpt from the Millennial Star, June, 1843, Vol. 4 page 18, where Parley P. Pratt writes:

"And Jesus, when he was baptized went up straight way out of the water, and low, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw spirit of god descending like a dove, and lighting upon him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Here, then, in the ratification of the ordinance of baptism, or the great law of adoption, instituted in order that men might enjoy the privilege of becoming Sons of God was the declaration made of the sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ; and the Saviour hath declared it is necessary that we should also be born of water and of the spirit before we can enter into the kingdom of god."

I could not read the Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1974 article because I don't have an account. However, the preview opening paragraph of Irving's paper makes this statement "These principles [Law of Adoption] were given a special interpretation by Brigham Young and his generation...". Effectively stating that Brigham Young's "Law of Adoption" (sealing) was not the same as the Joseph Smith's concept of "Law of Adoption" (baptism).

Is the Millennial Star, June, 1843, Vol. 4 paper the only primary source describing the "Law of Adoption"? If so, there is nothing here associating the Law of Adoption has Brigham Young practiced - to anything Joseph Smith taught. Nor does Irving's speculative statement "It is certainly probable, that Joseph Smith did initiate certain trusted leaders into the adoptionary order as early as 1842." have any basis in fact. It appears to be apologist wishful thinking to rewrite history and push events has far into the past as possible and into Joseph's lifetime. It appears to me that the Wikipedia article reflects the correct history, and Brigham Young initiated the concept of "Law of Adoption" sealings after Joseph died.