- Chad Nielsen on Jonathan Stapley on the Law of Adoption: “It’s most commonly thought that sealing between man and wife developed first, intertwined with the early plural marriages (and could be thought of as horizontal sealings, i.e., creating links within the same generation). Sealings to children or parents were a slightly later development (and could be thought of as vertical sealings, i.e., linking between generations). The Law of Adoption sealings were a modified version of the type we do for children to parents today, with the difference being that it was to someone who wasn’t a close biological relative. An adopted child being sealed to their adoptive parents is the closest equivalent practiced today, and is functionally the same category of sealing. The main differences are that priesthood adoption sealings were frequently creating child-parent relationships between people who were similar ages, and the purpose was to be sealed to someone who you thought had a good chance of being exalted rather than to be sealed to someone because you viewed them as kin beforehand.” Oct 20, 09:23
- on Jonathan Stapley on the Law of Adoption: “Was the sealing between a man and wife considered different than other types of sealings? Were these types of sealings considered the same as children to parents that are practiced today?” Oct 20, 09:02
- on The New Jerusalem and Ancient Israel Imposed on Google Earth: “I thought JS had plans for one bigger temple in the middle between the 12 MP and AP ones?? It is interesting to me how BY treated temples differently than JS.” Oct 20, 08:47
- on That time when President Oaks told you voting Democrat was okay: “I’ll admit I am one of those people who voted for Mr. Trump last time. That being said, I only did it because I didn’t trust Kamala Harris, the VP to be an improvement and found her whole “regulating speech” on social media platforms especially concerning. Sure you could make the argument that I could’ve voted third party instead, but since when has ANY third party candidates EVER won a presidential race? All I can really say here is that I didn’t vote for Mr. Trump out of any love and admiration for the man at all. I even TRIED to make sure Mr. Trump didn’t get the GOP nomination. But it was all in vain. So there you have it. I’m not proud of my vote for Mr. Trump last presidential election, but I did what I did.” Oct 19, 22:19
- on Jonathan Stapley on the Law of Adoption: “John D Lee was the adopted son of Brigham Young.” Oct 19, 17:02
- on Mormons, Handbells, and the Issue of Respectability: “Yeah. That’s good insight. And I think the shift from a hobbyest thing to use in Protestant churches is one example of usefulness that expanded how handbells were perceived. It’s interesting that that usefulness there has led, in turn, to its own limiting perceptions.” Oct 19, 12:34
- on Jonathan Stapley on the Law of Adoption: “My 3rd great-grandfather, George Laub, was adopted to none other than John D. Lee, and crossed the plains as George Laub Lee. It seems they drifted apart after that, well before Mountain Meadows. I confess I’ve wondered about the status of that sealing. I presume it’s now preempted by the sealing to his biological father. (I understand George Laub’s journal is a fairly well-known source on the topic of adoption, but I’ve only read the Nauvoo parts–thanks for editing them, Eugene England–and heard some other fun stories.) I don’t see anything scandalous about this practice, but it is a good example of how when light and knowledge come gradually, we can sometimes reach incorrect conclusions based on the incomplete understanding we have at a given point. And sometimes God lets us act on those incorrect conclusions and straightens out the messes we made later.” Oct 19, 10:41
- on Jonathan Stapley on the Law of Adoption: “There’s quite a bit of JS’s teachings or stories about him given the same way that we take at face value. Jumping over to the Adam God issue, we also have Eliza who revered Joseph even more than BY. So we’d have to say the two of them were in on that together as we well when she said it came from JS? Now we can all debate about what they knew, what we think they knew, what we think we know about what they taught etc. they aren’t here to ask. But I take what BY says at face value when says Joseph taught him something. So it came from Joseph. He was very loyal to him. We’re nearly in Matthew claimed Jesus said, “Man does not live by bread alone territory….” with that kind of language is where I’m bristling. Back to the topic, we do have BY sharing his vision/dream of Joseph (which we accept and teach as real and of doctrinal import, not imagined) bringing up the law of adoption that the brethren were wanting more light on. Which clearly implies it was brought up before and and others know about it from Joseph.” Oct 18, 23:14
- on Jonathan Stapley on the Law of Adoption: “To be clear, Sute, I’m not uncomfortable with this doctrine or the fact that Church leaders taught and practiced it. Nor do I feel like pushing doctrines and practices onto Brigham Young accomplishes anything useful for Church members today, since he’s part of our history and line of succession. That’s a big part of my personal frustration with people who try to push polygamy onto Brigham Young instead of Joseph Smith. That being said, there are limitations to what we can say about what Joseph Smith taught and did in several topics that Brigham Young claimed to have learned from Smith. For example, the Adam God doctrine. There are things that we know JS said that created the context in which BY could offer his views on Adam being our God and it fit well enough within Latter-day Saint teachings. But we do not have an unambiguous statement on record that makes it so we can say that JS taught the same doctrine that BY did on the issue. Could JS have? Sure. But we don’t have enough evidence to prove that he did. (My personal opinion is that BY unintentionally exaggerated JS’s teachings on this or took a few logical leaps from what JS said and sincerely thought he was teaching the same as JS.) What I’m saying here is similar. BY claimed to have learned it from JS, but from what I recall, the historical evidence we have available to us to support that is shakey. JS could have, but it’s not clear. I’m fine with it either way and I was not trying to imply that BY was going rogue.” Oct 18, 22:48
- on Jonathan Stapley on the Law of Adoption: “I don’t understand Sute’s accusatory tone. It’s not like Brigham Young failed to innovate doctrines and that everything from Joseph is crystal clear. And the law of adoption is hardly something that would damage Smith’s image.” Oct 18, 21:22
