Born in the covenant
We live in an age of equity. It is not surprising that concepts of birthright and inheritance in the Old Testament are incongruous with our enlightened existence. Perhaps, in light of Joseph Smiths temple theology, a connection can be drawn between them and us, though attenuated with time.
The children of those sealed as husband and wife in the Abrahamic order are regarded as being “born in the covenant.” This status is generally viewed as meaning that children will reside with the parents for eternity. This, however, is a more modern interpretation.
Brigham Young’s first presidency wrote in the announcement closing the Endowment House:
Which of them, if he understands the laws of God, can feel indifferent as to whether his wife shall be his for eternity or for time only; or whether his children shall be born in the covenant and be legal heirs to the priesthood or have to become such by adoption? (1)
President Cannon later explained the sealing of man and woman:
In this way the Latter-day Saints are being bound together in the new and everlasting covenant, wives being sealed to their husbands, and children, the offspring of these marriages, being born in the covenant…They are legitimate heirs of the Priesthood and of the blessings of the new and everlasting covenant. But not so with those who have been born outside of this covenant. There has to be some ordinance performed in order to make them legitimate; and that ordinance, the Prophet Joseph revealed, was the ordinance of adoption; (2)
This idea of legal inheritance of priesthood is exemplified by Joseph Smith himself. He taught that his firstborn son in the covenant, David, was to be King over Israel and prophet. Brigham Young reiterated this on several occasions, for example:
while the sun shines, the water runs, the grass growes, and the earth remains, young Joseph Smith will never be the leader of the Latter-day Saints! But if [David] the one that Joseph the prophet predicted, should step forth to become the leader of this Church, he will come to us like a little child. (3)
David’s life was sadly tragic and he never fulfilled the vision of his father. However, it may act as a lens to reevaluate the relationship of Abraham and his sons. I do not believe in any biblical genetic priesthood prohibitions, but I recognize that the story of Isaac’s ascension is interpreted as being based on tribal purity. The Bible’s chronology is, however, clear: Abraham sires Ishmael in chapter 16; Abraham (with Sarah) enters into a covenant with the Lord in 17 and Isaac is conceived.
Isaac is Abraham’s firstborn in the Covenant – the first legal heir of the priesthood.
___________________
- Messages of the First Presidency. vol. 2 pg. 278.
- Collected Discourses vol. 4 April 8, 1894
- Discourse by Brigham Young, 7 October 1863, Brigham Young Papers, LDS Archives as cited in Esplin, R. K. (1981) Joseph, Brigham and the Twelve: a Succession of Continuity. BYU Studies vol. 21 no. 3
J,
Well said. What’s really cool to me is that you just summed up parts of Romans 3 and 4 (unknowingly?).
For later Judaism, the custom was that one was Jewish (and, by extension, the elect) if one’s mother was Jewish, not the father. This appeal goes all the way back to Genesis as well, in which case Ishmael fails because his mother wasn’t the woman to whom the promise was given. Paul picks up on this a little bit too. Ishmael is out cuz his momma wasn’t legit.
Joseph Smith himself… taught that his firstborn son in the covenant, David, was to be King over Israel and prophet
Wasn’t Joseph III older than David Hyrum? Is Brigham essentially saying that one is a “firstborn son” if he is born under the covenant of the Fulness of the priesthood (which Joseph III wasn’t, but David Hyrum was)? Wouldn’t Joseph III qualify as “firstborn” before David Hyrum?
Comment by David J — 4/11/2006 @ 2:14 am
Wait a minute! David Hyrum was born after Joseph died… Unless Emma had an ultrasound, he wouldn’t know if he was even having a boy… Am I missing something here?
Comment by David J — 4/11/2006 @ 2:16 am
Now this is a mystery to me. I agree with the reading of Genesis: Isaac inherited the covenant. Likewise, both Rom 3-4 and Rom 9 make much the same point, although in the larger service of other [related] ideas.
So how is it that I am occasionally told by LDS acquaintances that “we are also interested in Ishmael, because he was one of Abraham’s son and heir to the promises made to Abraham’s posterity”? If there is no distinction between Isaac and Ishmael, then Paul’s larger argument in Romans cannot be sustained.
True? Or have I misunderstood something?
Comment by Mogget — 4/11/2006 @ 9:04 am
Well, Emma didn’t recieve any temple ordinances until 1843 – after Joseph III was born. To my understanding, none of their children were “adopted” to them before Joseph died, so David was the only covenant child. Joseph knew Emma was pregnant with in his final months and taught, quite liberally, that David was to be heir. E.g., Quinn cites Mrs Durphee as saying:
David’s life is a true tragedy.
Mogget, I think we can see that Ishmael was still favored of the Lord (12 children/tribes). By no means were Joseph Smith’s other children bastards (at least in this life), why could not some similar arrangement be made to Ishmael?
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/11/2006 @ 10:20 am
I’m unfamiliar with the life story of David Hyrum. Could someone give just a brief synopsis. Thanks.
Comment by gomez — 4/11/2006 @ 11:00 am
Gomez, here is the preface to his biography, which is a good summary. It was written by Avery, who passed away this week, God bless her soul. He was gifted, but grew mentally ill.
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/11/2006 @ 11:14 am
…and yep David, I readily admit to being a Biblical moron. That said, I should proabably just nod and say that of course I made the connection to Paul’s interpretation. 🙂
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/11/2006 @ 11:50 am
I’d never given the Ishmael/Isaac issue more than a cursory level of thought. When I had, I had always considered it more in terms of Hagar and Sarah, and yet the question of being born in the covenant is right there.
Being in a restoration of the priesthood, though (from Joesph on through today, really for as long as missionaries spread the word across the earth), I do not know if the idea of a legal inheritance of the priesthood is any more valid than an adopted one. Is my husband’s priesthood (recent convert, December 2005) any less holy than, say, yours, J.? I do not ask rhetoriaclly; it is a genuine interrogative.
As for a parallel between Isaac & David, I do not know if that holds. I see Joseph’s words about his son more in the light of the many prophecies that we have in the D&C in regard to specific people. There is no inherited heirarchical authority in the church in my current understanding. The order of succession is based on time in service, not on fatherhood. Yah no maybe?
Comment by Naiah Earhart — 4/11/2006 @ 1:12 pm
Well, the answer about your husband’s priesthood is that there is no difference. There are two qualifications, neither of us likely have the “fullness” of the piesthood, and in Brighams day, your husband would like have been “adopted” to a prominant church leader to establish his legal right. This practice was stopped by President Woodruff.
As to succession, it was widely recognized by Brigham’s contemporaries that it was David’s to reject (which he did). Isaac could have as well, and the story would now be different. JFS was the prophet because Brigham singled him out to be ordained really early, he being the next heir.
Of course, times have changed. Look at how the Prophet denied involvement with making his son a General Authority! Brigham had no compunction about ordaining two of his sons apostles on the same day.
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/11/2006 @ 1:52 pm
Is it possible that Brigham’s statements in this case were made in the absence of the later revelation on the part of President Woordruff htat did away with such adoptions. That is, until that point, we really didn’t understand the sealing power, though we had it as a church. Certainly Briham would have spoken given the understanding he had. We now understand more because we have been given further reveleation.
Comment by Steve H — 4/11/2006 @ 2:24 pm
I think the answer is that President Woodruff did indeed change the practice by revelation. Practically, it was very messy and lead to what President Cannon called “clannishness” when it was recieved. That said, Joseph Smith’s Exaltation theology really doesn’t work without it. Perhaps, this too is superceded by revelation, but this has tremendous ramifications for such things as our temple rites.
I think that in some form adoption will persist in the eternities. What if your parents never do accept the gospel in this or the next life? Well, unless you are adopted to someone, you have no claim on exaltation. Now, we just say that the Lord will figure everything out…which is a lot cleaner then trying to have us do it as it was done in the 19th century.
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/11/2006 @ 2:36 pm
I think that in some form adoption will persist in the eternities. What if your parents never do accept the gospel in this or the next life?
I think this is quite compelling. And it would explain the sense of urgency Brigham felt. While I believe that my exaltation is the product of my own choices, rather than those of my parents, why would I ever be happy to rest complacent with adoption rather than having an eternal priesthood sealed to my parents–a real issue for me at times, since my folks aren’t so active, though I have been sealed to my parents, which creates a more complicated picture in terms of “figuring everythng out,” though the best solution is not to have to figure anything out–in fact, the whole idea of figuring it out, of at some point having to cut losses with any family member is entirely painful for me. Nothing could ever figure that out, whatever my own situation in relation to my exaltation.
Comment by Steve H — 4/11/2006 @ 4:47 pm
Very much agreed.
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/11/2006 @ 5:34 pm
Being about as dense as lead, I’ve asked this question before on the bloggernacle, and have been graciously offered some really wonderful answers, but I’ll just ask it again because I am still struggling to understand it all!
I guess I just don’t understand the sealing power and what BIC really means. I was told kids can’t be sealed to parents unless parents have been sealed to each other. I tried to be sealed to my single mom and even though we both have our endowments we are not allowed to be sealed to each other because “children are not sealed to parents. They are sealed to the convenant.”
With this in mind, what is being sealed to one’s parents really mean? It somehow conflicts with the eternal family idea. (We’re not all really sealed “to each otehr?”) And by adopted, do you just mean being sealed to that person? e.g.,in Brighams day, your husband would like have been “adopted” to a prominant church leader to establish his legal right. Do you mean people were sealed to a prominant church leader? IOW, could I be sealed (“adopted”) to a family friend who was married in the temple because I’m being sealed into the covenant, but I can’t be sealed to my own mom because she wasn’t married in the temple?
Are those children BIC spiritally superior to those that aren’t? If this is really true, then it’s really depressing to me because it sets up a lot of really terrific people to suffer from very core self-esteem/self-worth issues.
This is really confusing for me, so I apologize if I’m rehashing something old.
Comment by meems — 4/12/2006 @ 1:19 am
Meems, these are very good questions. Indeed, if you are born in the covenant, and your parents get their sealing annulled you are still in the covenant. I would suspect that this is one of those things that will get “worked out” in the eternities.
I think it is dificult to grasp because the modern concept of the “eternal family” really doesn’t make sense. Sealed to your spouse? Yes. But what does it mean to be sealed to your children? Well, the early brethren’s explaination is the most coherent that I have know.
I would check out this excerpt from the 1847 Mellenial Star for a general perspective on exaltation. But being sealed to someone as a child creates a legal bond of inheritance or right to govern, in the case of the CK. Being born in the covenant is no different than not, inasmuch that to be exalted you will have to be sealed to someone that is exalted (according to 19th century theology).
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/12/2006 @ 11:15 am
J, you’re no biblical moron, man. In fact, you know more than you think, which is twice as much as half the people I know!
Comment by David J — 4/14/2006 @ 12:20 pm
Meems (#14),
I don’t know who said that, but there is no such thing as being sealed to a covenant. One can only be sealed to other persons, who in the case of a child to parent sealing must eventually be sealed back not only to Adam, but through Adam to those exalted persons or couples that preside over him in the patriarchal (family) order of the Priesthood, until we reach The Most High (and presumably his wife) himself (of whom Adam is a type), forming one great big family, organized into sub-families formally along patrilineal lines but cross-linked along matrilineal ones.
One of the great problems with being adopted merely to a father and not to a mother (or vice versa), is that it leads to tribal rivalry. Same deal with tradition in some parts of the world of marrying near relatives in preference to representatives of more distant families. One of the greatest benefits of marriage in a family oriented society is the binding ties that it creates not only between two persons, but between two families, and ultimately nations and peoples.
I must also say, that I do not think birth order matters very much compared to righteousness, especially in a post-mortal situation where the parents are alive and well, thus not needing to delegate the presidency over their posterity to (typically) the first born son.
Comment by Mark Butler — 9/12/2006 @ 12:57 pm