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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?