Pergunta: Qual é a história por trás da prática Mórmon chamada de "Lei de Adoção"?

Índice

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Question: What is the history behind the Mormon practice called the "Law of Adoption"?

The idea of sealings has undergone a number of changes over time

The idea of sealings has undergone a number of changes over time, as we have had new revelation, and as our notion has been developed and better understood. This is a drawing of the Celestial Kingdom along with its description published by Apostle Orson Hyde in 1847, which shows how members and leaders were thinking about the matter then:

Orson Hyde wrote (in the Millennial Star):

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the Father. he is one with he Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father's and becomes part of it. … The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. ... It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms. These have received their washings and anointings in the temple of God on this earth; they have been chosen, ordained, and anointed kings and priests, to reign as such in the resurrection of the just. Such as have not received the fullness of the priesthood, (for the fullness of the priesthood includes the authority of both king and priest) and have not been anointed and ordained in the temple of the Most High, may obtain salvation in the celestial kingdom, but not a celestial crown. Many are called to enjoy a celestial glory, yet few are chosen to wear a celestial crown, or rather, to be rulers in the celestial kingdom."

Ehat and Cook wrote of this diagram in their discussion of Joseph Smith's Nauvoo-era teachings:

According to the teachings that the Prophet gave in private (but which he only hinted at in this discourse [13 August 1843]), 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 (Mal. 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.

Now what you may notice immediate is that this doesn't look like any picture of the Celestial Kingdom you might find in a discussion of the Plan of Salvation today, does it? In fact, our current version (with three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom) doesn't get introduced to the Church until 1878, and Section 131 (which we usually use as the doctrinal basis for that teaching today) enters the Canon of scripture in 1880. But this concept of the Celestial Kingdom is essential to understanding some of what is happening with Nauvoo-era sealings.

The other important thing to understand is the notion of sealings of adoption. So we had sealings between spouses, we had sealings between parents and children (biological), biological brothers and sisters, and we had sealings between otherwise unrelated people that created the same sorts of linkages. Now why were these linkages important? Because in the sense of the chart and description above, they determined where you fit in the hierarchy of the Celestial Kingdom.

Most of these sealings of adoption were between members and General Authorities (members of the First Presidency, Apostles, and so on). Because those individuals were considered to be part of the top tier of the hierarchy of the Celestial Kingdom. And so to be sealed to one of them meant that at the very least you would be in one of these larger kingdoms closer to God. If you were sealed to someone else, you might fall much further down the hierarchy. We see this in action as the Church is forced out of Nauvoo. In Winter Quarters, for example, Wilford Woodruff described in his journal that the people had divided into 'tribes'. And some of the people took these sealings of adoption absolutely literally. John D. Lee, for example, consistently described himself as Brigham Young's son, even though he had no biological relationship to him - only this sealing.

Eventually, these sealings of adoption were abandoned (as the LDS people came to understand the doctrine of sealings better), and then later this model of the Celestial Kingdom was also abandoned to be replaced eventually with the model we have today.

The idea didn't exist completely in LDS thought of the entire human family as a single sort of equal body as God's children in the Celestial Kingdom. So the sealings were meant to create connections to create an organizing structure (a new family of God - that took more literally the language of scripture of being adopted into the family of God - e.g. Eph. 1:5 or Gal. 4:5), and the family structure of the family of God was understood to be much more complicated than we view it today. And the notion of doing these sealings for the dead really is just beginning at the time that Joseph Smith is killed - there isn't yet a sense in Orson Hyde's description that everyone would receive the ordinances of the temple - either in their own lifetime or by proxy).

The understanding of the work of the millennial period as a time for doing this work (and a time for sorting through some of the sticky situations and mistakes of the past) hadn't yet taken hold. And our struggle today is that we often try to understand these practices in light of our own doctrine and our knowledge today, when we should try to understand them by the much less complete understanding that the Saints had at the time.