{"id":1393,"date":"2026-09-01T01:59:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-01T07:59:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/?p=1393"},"modified":"2026-08-31T17:55:44","modified_gmt":"2026-08-31T23:55:44","slug":"the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/","title":{"rendered":"The Holy Order, Part 3: Adoption &#8211; Pt. 1"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"powerpress_player\" id=\"powerpress_player_5870\"><audio class=\"wp-audio-shortcode\" id=\"audio-1393-1\" preload=\"none\" style=\"width: 100%;\" controls=\"controls\"><source type=\"audio\/mpeg\" src=\"http:\/\/media.blubrry.com\/lightandtruth\/denversnuffer.net\/podcast\/episodes\/2026.07.12_LT118_Holy-Order-3_Part-1.mp3?_=1\" \/><a href=\"http:\/\/media.blubrry.com\/lightandtruth\/denversnuffer.net\/podcast\/episodes\/2026.07.12_LT118_Holy-Order-3_Part-1.mp3\">http:\/\/media.blubrry.com\/lightandtruth\/denversnuffer.net\/podcast\/episodes\/2026.07.12_LT118_Holy-Order-3_Part-1.mp3<\/a><\/audio><\/div><p class=\"powerpress_links powerpress_links_mp3\" style=\"margin-bottom: 1px !important;\">Podcast: <a href=\"http:\/\/media.blubrry.com\/lightandtruth\/denversnuffer.net\/podcast\/episodes\/2026.07.12_LT118_Holy-Order-3_Part-1.mp3\" class=\"powerpress_link_pinw\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Play in new window\" onclick=\"return powerpress_pinw('https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/?powerpress_pinw=1393-podcast');\" rel=\"nofollow\">Play in new window<\/a> | <a href=\"http:\/\/media.blubrry.com\/lightandtruth\/denversnuffer.net\/podcast\/episodes\/2026.07.12_LT118_Holy-Order-3_Part-1.mp3\" class=\"powerpress_link_d\" title=\"Download\" rel=\"nofollow\" download=\"2026.07.12_LT118_Holy-Order-3_Part-1.mp3\">Download<\/a> (Duration: 1:48:33 &#8212; 199.7MB)<\/p><p class=\"powerpress_links powerpress_subscribe_links\">Subscribe: <a href=\"https:\/\/podcasts.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/light-and-truth-podcast\/id1474389927?mt=2&amp;ls=1\" class=\"powerpress_link_subscribe powerpress_link_subscribe_itunes\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Subscribe on Apple Podcasts\" rel=\"nofollow\">Apple Podcasts<\/a> | <a href=\"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/feed\/podcast\/\" class=\"powerpress_link_subscribe powerpress_link_subscribe_rss\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Subscribe via RSS\" rel=\"nofollow\">RSS<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Presented here is the first half of a talk by Denver Snuffer that was delivered at a general conference held in Grand Junction, Colorado, at the Avalon Theater on 12 July 2026. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<!--more-->\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I don\u2019t have a clock. I don\u2019t have a phone. I don\u2019t have any idea if I\u2019m supposed to start. I don\u2019t know if someone\u2019s supposed to introduce me. \u201cOur next speaker will be me.\u201d [laughter]&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I know a lot of people who haven\u2019t taken a seat yet. Oh well. Hugh Nibley used to say that the best protection of the mysteries is the general disinterest, so I\u2019m assuming I can proceed with the protection of the mysteries by all those in the lobby. [laughter]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">And I saw someone looking like they wanted to do an introduction. Sorry. I\u2019m\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Okay. Mankind began as a family. Adam and Eve were the first mortal parents, intended as the patriarch and matriarch over all who would live in the world. They were also the priest and priestess of a religion given to them by Heaven. That starting point was quickly disrupted, and the first generations of their children rejected their religion, separated from their parents, and followed Satan in rebellion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A son named Cain was born when Adam and Eve were grandparents (or perhaps great-grandparents) and at a time when the family had become disorganized and chaotic. His birth gave Eve hope that she finally had a faithful son. As she put it, <em>I have gotten a man from the Lord, wherefore he may not reject his words<\/em> (Genesis 3:6 RE). Her hope was shattered when Cain killed another son, Abel.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From the dawn of mankind, the family of Adam and Eve descended into apostasy and disorder. The Scriptures compel us to admit that, apart from Abel, the second generation of mankind was entirely lost until the birth of Seth. From him, a line of faithful descendants was established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This resulted in two clear conditions for the first generations: There was a larger, predominant population of apostate men and women who:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>\u2026kept not the commandments of God, and it displeased God, and he ministered not unto them. And their works were abominations and began to spread among all the sons of men. \u2026And thus the works of darkness began to prevail among\u2026the sons of men.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>And God cursed the earth with a severe curse and was angry with the wicked, with all the sons of men whom he had made, for they would not listen unto his voice nor believe on his Only Begotten Son, even him who he declared should come in the meridian of time, who was prepared from before the foundation of the world.<\/em> (Genesis 3:12-13 RE)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ultimately, within ten generations, mankind had so few who were righteous and so many who were inordinately violent and wicked that God destroyed His creation with a flood. A few gathered into a city and with Enoch were translated. Noah (and his family) was guided by the Lord to survive the cataclysm. This gave mankind an opportunity to start over. But the generations following Noah fared no better in preserving the religion God taught to the first parents. Apostasy returned, and the opportunity for the family of mankind to return to a unified order\u2014a singular family practicing a singular religion, with all members knowing they belonged to a united whole\u2014was again quickly forfeited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Our Scriptures confirm that mankind has descended into disorder from the beginning. Instead of a unified family, we are separated, with little or no genealogical connection to one another. Recent DNA science reveals something about the distant past and the far-flung regions from which we descend. Knowing that you have some Irish ancestors does not, however, reconnect you to them. Even if you think of yourself as Irish, your ancestors are not likely to be limited to the Irish. In a recent study of Americans:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>European Americans are 98% European, 0.19% African, and 0.18% Native American.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>African Americans are 73% African, 24% European, and 1% Native American.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Latino Americans are 65% European, 18% Native American, and 6% African.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Of course, this is only a generalization and grouping based on overall reporting of the various ethnic categories. It helps show that our ancestry is diverse and includes a widely spread geographic and cultural heritage reflecting the scattered family of Adam and Eve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Because mankind is splintered, the original religion of Adam was modified, and an innovation was offered as a substitute to reconnect and reunify us. God wants the atonement of Jesus Christ to save as many souls as possible. The substitute way God has used to expand salvation was to provide a covenant. God offers the terms, and mankind accepts His offer. Through covenant-making, God is able to incorporate multiple people, even whole families, into salvation. Covenants have been used to greatly expand salvation for Adam\u2019s descendants. After a covenant has been offered and accepted, others are permitted to opt in to the covenantal group by accepting the same covenant terms. God\u2019s conditions always require the covenanter\/the convert to change their course and to be baptized before their inclusion into the community. This innovation has allowed for the widespread recovery of believers, despite the loss of the original plan for mankind\u2019s salvation.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Book of Mormon describes the disorganized condition of mankind as alone, <em>without God in the world<\/em> (Alma 19:10 RE). Once a person is converted, they are then \u201cnumbered among\u201d the faithful followers of the Lord.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Any covenant can be broken and lost. By breaking the covenant, mankind loses their saved status, even if they were \u201cborn into the covenant.\u201d The Book of Mormon teaches this: <em>For behold, I say unto you, as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord, and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off<\/em> (2 Nephi 12:11 RE).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Despite innovating an accommodation to save souls, it has always been God\u2019s promise that Adam\u2019s family would return to their original status. Adam prophesied of this before his death: <em>Now this same Priesthood which was in the beginning shall be in the end of the world also (now this prophecy Adam spoke as he was moved upon by the holy ghost)&#8230;<\/em> (Genesis 3:14 RE).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In addition to the substitute, covenant-making innovation for saving souls, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has always included the plan for individuals to ultimately reconnect with the original family order. Time and the many generations separating us from Adam and Eve are to be repaired through the return of the Holy Order after the Order of the Son of God. This talk follows three earlier talks about God\u2019s plan to restore and recover mankind before the Second Coming of the Lord. The earlier talks have been Lecture 5 on \u201cPriesthood,\u201d \u201cThe Holy Order,\u201d and \u201cThe Holy Order, Part 2.\u201d We have not yet adequately discussed the topic of adoption in the earlier talks, although it\u2019s been mentioned. It is now the topic addressed in this talk.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The restoration of an ancient religion started by Joseph Smith was quite unlike what has developed into modern Mormonism. The primary group associated with Mormonism is, of course, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its historians and apologists admit there have been changes. In a 2013 <em>BYU Studies<\/em> article, Samuel M. Brown wrote:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">During my study of the contexts, connotations, and currents of early LDS adoption theology, I experienced what a famed scholar of late antiquity has called \u201csalutary vertigo.\u201d The more I investigated, the more I realized that the earliest Latter-day Saints saw the world differently than I do. (\u201cBelieving Adoption,\u201d <em>BYU Studies Quarterly<\/em>, Vol. 52, No. 2)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Because Joseph\u2019s vision differs from what is believed and practiced today, we still need to return to Joseph\u2019s work and then continue to restore what was once here. More accurately: We need to repent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Understanding how the practice of \u201cadoption\u201d fits into the Restoration is a model example of \u201cdwindling in unbelief.\u201d In the Glossary of Gospel Terms, this is the definition of the phrase \u201cdwindling in unbelief\u201d:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Unbelief is often used in connection with losing truth, forsaking doctrine, and therefore, \u201cdwindling.\u201d The phrase \u201cdwindling in unbelief\u201d is the Book of Mormon\u2019s way to describe moving from a state of belief, with true and complete doctrine, to a state of unbelief, where the truth has been discarded. Miracles end because men dwindle in unbelief.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Adoption was introduced as a means to avoid destruction at the Lord\u2019s return in glory. The deaths of Joseph and Hyrum interrupted efforts to establish it. This talk will trace how it began and how subsequent events led to its decline and eventual abandonment.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Our restored Scriptures (in the Testimony of St. John) mention becoming part of God\u2019s family, for example, in the passage: <em>\u2026to become like Him, begotten children in the family of the Most High God<\/em> (TSJ 1:3). Paul refers to \u201cadoption\u201d as part of conversion to follow Jesus Christ. Accordingly, the idea of \u201cadoption\u201d is part of Historic Christianity and Mormonism. For Christians, it is a vague notion used to refer to belief in, acceptance of, and conversion to Jesus Christ. For Mormonism, it once had a specific meaning, but that original meaning has drifted away until Mormon adoption is now akin to the Christian understanding.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The concept of \u201cadoption\u201d was generally recognized as part of Christianity as a whole when the Restoration began. The term was used loosely to mean a person believed in Christ and recognized Him as their Savior. The language of Paul is often cited to support the Christian claim that believers are automatically adopted by faith into God\u2019s family with nothing further required:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. And if children, then heirs: heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, if it so be that we suffer with him that we may [also be] glorified together.<\/em> (Romans 1:34 RE)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Because the LDS Church went adrift, language in the Book of Mormon has also become used to support a loose understanding of the term \u201cadoption.\u201d For example: <em>Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women \u2014 all nations, kindreds, tongues and people \u2014 must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters<\/em> (Mosiah 11:28 RE). Joseph Smith held a very different view, as I will explain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Because Mormonism failed to preserve the original idea, the meaning and mechanism of \u201cadoption\u201d in the Mormon religion have become a Gordian knot. It should be (but it is not) understood as a separate doctrine requiring a separate rite. Over time, it has instead become entwined with plural marriage and baptism for the dead. By entangling plural marriage, baptism for the dead, and adoption, our ability to understand Joseph Smith\u2019s message has been degraded. Obscuring adoption is one of the greatest losses in the dwindling Restoration. It must again be understood as a separate, important, and eternally significant religious rite.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As adoption began to take shape in Joseph Smith\u2019s work, Parley P. Pratt offered an early glimpse of what was underway. In his pamphlet \u201cA Voice of Warning,\u201d Pratt describes the process soon to be offered by Mormon officials, who were \u201cprepared to unlock the door of the kingdom, and to adopt strangers and foreigners into it as legal citizens, by administering certain laws and ordinances which were invariably the laws of adoption\u2026\u201d (\u201cA Voice of Warning and Instruction to All People,\u201d p.95). This early reference to laws and ordinances would later lead to greater clarity as adoption became a separate rite.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Although adoption would eventually stand on its own with Joseph Smith, the early LDS leaders blended it with plural marriage. This has led, in turn, to an inaccurate and misguided history of Joseph Smith. When the LDS apostles attributed plural marriage to Joseph Smith, it led to the editing, revision, and publication of altered historical documents. The resulting inaccurate history has been used, accepted, and perpetuated. One example of conflating what deserves to be treated separately appears in Samuel Brown\u2019s article in <em>The Journal of Mormon History<\/em>. He explained his understanding this way:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The vast scope of adoption theology, generally stretched vertically through the generations of time, in polygamy stretched horizontally through the contemporary world. Though the first steps dated to\u20261830s, by the early 1840s Smith had begun to expound a marital\/sexual system scholars have termed proto-polygamy and which early Latter-day Saints denominated \u201cplural\u201d or \u201ccelestial\u201d marriage. In several important respects, polygamy is the marital amplification and application of adoption theology\u2026&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It\u2019s hard for me to just read that without degenerating into a series of obscenities to describe what I\u2019m thinking about Samuel Brown\u2019s conclusion here. But let me continue without that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u2026\u201cPlural\u201d not only indicated that there would be multiple wives for each man but that such ritual marriages would unite worshippers as part of the celestial plurality of Smith\u2019s heaven family. In the words of a revelation, the righteous \u201cshall be crowned upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house both old and young because of the lineage of my Preasthood saith the Lord it shall be upon you and upon your Children after you from generation to generation By virtue of the Holy promise which I now make unto you.\u201d (Samuel M. Brown, \u201cEarly Mormon Adoption Theology and the Mechanics of Salvation,\u201d <em>Journal of Mormon History<\/em>, Vol. 37, No. 2, p.38, footnotes omitted, spellings as in original)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From Brown\u2019s viewpoint, everything involving \u201csealing\u201d was marital. Similarly, Richard L. Bushman failed to separate or acknowledge that adoption could (and should) be parsed separately from plural marriage. Consider below what he wrote, which, instead of being an accurate explanation of Joseph Smith\u2019s practice, is a conflation of two different subjects as if they were one:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The only answer seems to be the explanation Joseph gave when he asked a woman for her consent: that they and their families would benefit spiritually from a close tie to the Prophet. Joseph told a prospective wife that submitting to plural marriage would \u201censure your eternal salvation &amp; exaltation and that of your father\u2019s household. &amp; all your kindred.\u201d A father who gave his daughter to the Prophet as a plural wife was assured that the marriage \u201cshall be crowned upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house[hold] both old and young.\u201d The relationship would bear fruit in the afterlife. There is no certain evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with any of the wives who were married to other men. They married because Joseph\u2019s kingdom grew with the size of his family, [to] those bonded to that family would be exalted with him. (Richard Bushman, <em>Rough Stone Rolling<\/em>, p.439, footnotes omitted)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">If sealing could mean \u201cadoption\u201d into Joseph\u2019s family rather than \u201cmarriage\u201d to him, how differently might Bushman\u2019s conclusion be understood? Let me rewrite that paragraph with this alternative view in mind:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The only answer seems to be the explanation Joseph gave when he asked a woman for her consent: that they and their families would benefit spiritually from a close tie to the Prophet. Joseph told a prospective [daughter] that submitting to [adoption] would \u201censure your eternal salvation &amp; exaltation and that of your father\u2019s household. &amp; all your kindred.\u201d A father who gave his daughter to the Prophet as a [sealed daughter] was assured that the [sealing] \u201cshall be crowned upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house[hold] both old and young.\u201d The relationship would bear fruit in the afterlife. \u2026They [were sealed] because Joseph\u2019s kingdom grew with the size of his family, and those [adopted into] that family would be exalted with him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Given the ongoing debate about whether Joseph Smith actually introduced plural marriage, approaching adoption as a separate, divisible sealing rite makes it part of that debate. I\u2019m gonna set aside questions about polygamy\u2019s origin. I want to focus on adoption as something completely apart from plural wives or any form of marriage. That is necessary if adoption is ever to be understood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Here is another historian\u2019s account describing the effect of an adoption sealing on the afterlife:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Among these [early Mormon] rituals were those binding, or sealing, families together. According to Mormon belief, family units must be sealed together by the authority of the priesthood (restored through Joseph Smith) to have validity after death. One ordinance seals parents and children to each other. Because most early Mormons were children of unbaptized members, however, many were \u201cadopted to\u201d prominent men in the church. Isaac Morley, for example, was adopted as a son to Brigham Young, although fifteen years his senior. These family ties carried with them all the moral obligations that inhere in family relationships, strengthening the bonds of loyalty among the leading families. (Kathryn M. Daynes, <em>More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System 1840-1910<\/em>, p.25, footnote omitted)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">If family life continues after death, then both marriage and adoption have implications for the form the family will take. Therefore, adoption is just as important as marriage for the afterlife. As Joseph Smith practiced adoption, sealing in adoption was not tied to earthly alliances but was instead to be understood as creating a relationship with \u201cthe fathers in heaven.\u201d Joseph Smith\u2019s adoption secured promises for the afterlife. This talk will parse adoption as a distinct form of sealing, unrelated to marriage and without any connection to plural wives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It is possible that when Joseph Smith began \u201csealing\u201d others to himself that he made no distinction. He may have just \u201csealed\u201d others to himself without clarifying the resulting status, other than that they would be together in the afterlife. That possibility occurs to me because Joseph\u2019s clearest reference to \u201cadoption\u201d as a ritual (from all that I\u2019ve been able to find in the available record) was in October 1843. If Joseph did not make a distinction before then, historians have worked with an inadequate record from which to reconstruct the events.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Even with all the vagaries of history, adoption was once understood in Mormonism as the means of preserving mankind from being utterly wasted at the Lord\u2019s return. Two events help justify the link between adoption and surviving the burning at the Lord\u2019s return. The first sealing adoption in history occurred generations after the first apostasy, when Abraham became the \u201cfather of the righteous.\u201d Scripture records that important event in the Book of Abraham:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>My name is Jehovah, and I know the end from the beginning. Therefore, my hand shall be over you, and I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you above measure, and make your name great among all nations. And you shall be a blessing unto your seed after you, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations. And I will bless them through your name; for as many as receive this gospel shall be called after your name and shall be accounted your seed, and shall rise up and bless you, as unto their Father. And I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you. And in you (that is, in your Priesthood) and in your seed, (that is, [in] your Priesthood) \u2014 for I give unto you a promise that this right shall continue in you and in your seed after you (that is to say, the literal seed or the seed of the body) \u2014 shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of [eternal life].<\/em> (Abraham 3:1 RE)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Here, God distinguished between the \u201cliteral seed of the body,\u201d on the one hand, and the \u201cseed\u201d obtained through \u201cPriesthood\u201d given to Abraham. Abraham\u2019s new status as the father of many nations was not to be merely through his lineal descendants. It would extend to include those who, through priestly ordinances, would become his descendants through adoption. This passage from the Book of Abraham is where God authorized the first adoption and confirmed its efficacy for all subsequent generations.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From that adoption, every generation that \u201creceive[d] this gospel shall be called after [Abraham\u2019s] name and shall be accounted [his] seed.\u201d In other words, Abraham\u2019s adoption set the precedent for every subsequent generation to be reconnected through adoption to the first fathers. Abraham was the first to be adopted into a broken family line of Adam. Before Abraham, the Holy Order after the Order of the Son of God was transmitted from patriarch (father) to heir (son) in an unbroken line. Abraham was the prototype for curing apostasy through adoption after the original Holy Order Priesthood link was broken.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The second scriptural clarification showing the necessity of adoption is foretold by Malachi and repeated in every volume of Scripture: Old Covenants, New Covenants, and Modern Covenants. That event is described in these words in the Old Covenants: <em>Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall seal the heart of the Fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their Fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse<\/em> (Malachi 1:12 RE).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When the angel Nephi quoted this passage, he rendered it differently. He also included earlier words from Malachi\u2019s prophecy, making the connection between them. Here is how Nephi put it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>\u2026he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy\u2026, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as reads in our books, he quoted it thus: \u201cFor behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea \u2026all that do wickedly, shall burn as stubble; for they that cometh shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.\u201d And again he quoted the fifth verse thus: \u201cBehold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood by the hand of Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.\u201d He also quoted the next verse differently: \u201cAnd he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers; if it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.\u201d<\/em> (Joseph Smith History 3:4 RE)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The words \u201croot\u201d and \u201cbranch\u201d are genealogical or familial. They indicate ancestors and posterity. When the \u201croot\u201d and \u201cbranch\u201d are destroyed in that coming day, the surviving \u201cchildren\u201d will be genealogically connected to the \u201cfathers.\u201d Correctly understood, the prophecy of Malachi is about adoption. This talk will clarify and reaffirm the need of adoption as an actual ordinance or rite that must return to connect some few back to Abraham before the coming great and dreadful day of the Lord\u2019s return.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A great deal of what Joseph Smith taught has been lost, limited, or rejected. It is not an overstatement to say that the loss of adoption may be the most serious of all that was left behind. It is so important that the world will be cursed and utterly wasted at the return of Christ if it is not restored. Joseph was first alerted to this on September 22, 1823, when Nephi repeated the prophecy that the failure to reconnect to the fathers would result in: <em>the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming<\/em> (ibid.). Christ also quoted this warning to the Nephites and required them to add it to their Scripture.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&nbsp;Joseph originally explained the prophecy was about connecting the living faithful to the \u201cfathers\u201d Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The connection was through Priesthood, not genealogy. Joseph gave us reasons to understand that he had become connected to the fathers through priesthood. While he never mentioned Elijah\u2019s return as anything other than a future event, he did mention numerous fathers as having ministered to him. He also clearly involved himself with adoption rites. In turn, Joseph became the \u201cfather\u201d of all who were sealed to him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When he began adoptions, families were put under Joseph as the father of the righteous in his dispensation. Accordingly, women and men were sealed to Joseph Smith as their father, and they as his daughters and sons. This was priestly, according to the law of God; not biological. This changed slightly when, in January 1841, his older brother, Hyrum, was appointed and ordained to stand at the head of the priesthood because he was Joseph\u2019s older brother:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>I now give unto you the offices belonging to my Priesthood, that you may hold the keys thereof, even the Priesthood which is after the Order of Melchizedek, which is after the Order of my Only Begotten Son. First, I give unto you Hyrum Smith to be a patriarch unto you, to hold the sealing blessings of my church, even the Holy Spirit of Promise whereby you are sealed up unto the day of redemption, that you may not fall\u2026<\/em> (T&amp;C 141:41)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As the Holy Order after the Order of the Only Begotten Son was arranged for Joseph\u2019s dispensation, the one who was appointed \u201cfirst\u201d was Hyrum. He was to be \u201ca patriarch unto [Joseph]\u201d as well as the church. As a result of that appointment, Hyrum would stand at the head and become the one adoption should recognize as the father. That change, which made Hyrum the father, was a clarification now lost to the LDS (and other Restoration denominations).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As soon as Hyrum and Joseph died, the doctrine began to erode, ultimately being replaced by the substitute practice of sealing genealogical lines together, with no connection to anyone holding the Holy Order. There also does not seem to have been any effort to recognize that Hyrum was appointed as the \u201cpatriarch unto [Joseph],\u201d which made him the relevant priestly father. Brigham Young and the Twelve continued to point to Joseph alone and to disregard any relevance to Hyrum\u2019s 1841 appointment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The history of \u201cadoption\u201d in Mormonism cannot be understood apart from Joseph Smith\u2019s theology, which requires such a sealing. Both history and theology are necessarily intertwined. Unfortunately, history both testifies to the critical importance of adoption and to how quickly that understanding can and did dwindle. Despite its apparent centrality to salvation and to surviving the Second Coming of Christ, adoption was never established on a firm enough foundation at the outset to allow it to endure. If it is ever to form a part of our theology again, it requires restoration. Although Joseph was given the pattern and held the authority, the people of that day were engaged in abominable mischief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The January 1841 revelation gave the people (who had been under condemnation since 1832) one more chance. But they were given this candid appraisal of their condition: \u2026<em>instead of blessings, you, by your own works, bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon your own heads, by your follies and by all your abominations which you practice before me, says the Lord<\/em> (T&amp;C 141:14). As a result, the Lord would not allow them to continue without repentance. If they repented and returned, the 1841 revelation promised that Christ would <em>come and restore again that which was lost unto you, or [that] which he has taken away, even the fullness of the Priesthood<\/em> (T&amp;C 141:10). That, of course, is necessary before the Lord\u2019s return, as He vindicates and fulfills every prophecy, promise, and covenant He\u2019s made. It is not a one-way street. People need to respond with obedience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Scriptures\u2014from the Old Covenants through the Modern Covenants\u2014show the repeated failure of God\u2019s chosen people. The Lord has explained the problem: <em>I, the Lord, am bound when you do what I say, but when you do not what I say you have no promise<\/em> (T&amp;C 78:2). Men fail, then blame God: <em>I command and men obey not, I revoke and they receive not the blessing, [and] then they say in their hearts, This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But woe unto such, for their reward lurks beneath, and not from above<\/em> (T&amp;C 45:7). Worse for mankind is the tendency to claim they are God\u2019s chosen after they, like the Latter-day Saints in 1844, were rejected because of their disobedience. The sad reality is that although God has repeatedly offered to gather and protect His people, they walk away from Him. The Lord spoke to the Nephites after their cataclysmic destruction, explaining His rejected offers:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>\u2026how often I\u2019ve tried to gather you as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! You people of the house of Israel who have fallen, O house of Israel who live at Jerusalem as well as you that have fallen: how often I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks, but you refused! You people of the house of Israel whom I\u2019ve spared, how often I will gather you as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, if you repent and return to Me with all your heart! But if not, O house of Israel, your dwelling places will become desolate\u2026<\/em> (3 Nephi 4:9 CE)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Mankind has proven difficult for the Lord to guide, putting any attempt to restore the Holy Order and its related rites at risk. Nauvoo was filled with secret acts, including adultery, counterfeiting, and murder. Joseph Smith sounded the alarm in the newspaper (and I\u2019m gonna read what he put in the newspaper, but it has exclamation points behind these sentences; it should probably be shouted):&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Your liberty is in danger! Thieves are in your midst! By day and by night [they are] prowling through your streets! Your property is in peril, and life, and limb, in jeopardy! Your love of justice, your personal honor, your attachment to your country, and your holy religion, all, all, loudly call upon you to assist in bringing the culprits to condign punishment. (<em>Times and Seasons<\/em> Vol. 2, pp.221\u201322)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Under the circumstances of the time, it was impossible for the Lord to return and restore what was lost to an undeserving and wicked people. Adultery and secret adulterous marriages to \u201cspiritual\u201d or plural wives in Nauvoo were denounced in a letter to the entire church written by Hyrum Smith, the Church\u2019s Patriarch and member of the First Presidency, on June 12, 1842, which stated in part:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Behold, this is a wicked generation, full of lyings, and deceit, and craftiness, and the children of the wicked are wiser than the children of light, i.e., they are more crafty, and it seems that it has been the case in all ages of the world. And the man, when he leaves his wife and travels to a foreign nation, while on his way, darkness overpowers his mind, and Satan deceives him and flatters him with the graces of the harlot, and before he is aware, he is disgraced for ever. And greater is the danger for [a] woman that leaves her husband. And there are several instances where women have left their husbands and come to this place, and in a few weeks or months they have found themselves new husbands and they are living in adultery, and we are obliged to cut them off from the church. There are men also that are guilty of the same crime, as we are credibly informed, we are knowing to their having taken wives here, and are credibly informed that they have wives in England.<\/em> (T&amp;C 149:4)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">God offered in exchange for repentance and obedience, that they <em>shall not be moved out of their place<\/em> (T&amp;C 141:13). IF they failed to repent, He warned them: <em>I will not perform the oath which I ma[de] unto you, neither fulfill the promises which you expect at my hands \u2026[because] you, by your own works, bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon your own heads\u2026<\/em> (T&amp;C 141:14). They were driven out of Nauvoo and fled to a desolate wilderness, suffering hardships, hunger, and poverty along the way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There were two alternatives: Obey and have the fullness restored, or disobey and be rejected and driven out of Nauvoo. As a result, adoption into the Holy Order after the Order of the Son of God hung in the balance between 1841 and June 27, 1844. That was a period of probation. Adoption was clearly something Joseph wanted to develop into a formal religious ordinance, rite, or practice that could be continued. When he performed an adoption as a Gospel rite, he could do so with authority. After January 1841, Hyrum Smith could also perform an adoption ceremony authoritatively. The revelation explaining Hyrum\u2019s authority states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>\u2026my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, \u2026 that from here on out he shall hold the keys of the Patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people, that who[m]ever he blesses shall be blessed and who[m]ever he curses shall be cursed, that whatever he shall bind on\u2026earth shall be bound in Heaven, and that whatever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>\u2026I now give unto you the offices belonging to my Priesthood, that you may hold the keys thereof, even the Priesthood which is after the Order of Melchizedek, which is after the Order of m[ine] Only Begotten Son. First, I give unto you Hyrum Smith to be a patriarch unto you, to hold the sealing blessings of my church, even the Holy Spirit of Promise whereby you are sealed up unto the day of redemption\u2026<\/em> (T&amp;C 141:32,41)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For that brief time, two could effect an adoption. After Joseph and Hyrum were killed, the authority was lost. To perpetuate an authoritative adoption would have required a standardized, authorized ordinance to be established while the authority was present and, thereafter, to be followed. A standardized and authorized ordinance established by God at the beginning of a dispensation can remain effective after the dispensation head dies. But that is true only if the ordinance is standardized and then perpetuated without change. That did not happen. LDS scholars have struggled to deal with the rough transition following the killing of the Smith brothers. For an LDS apologist, it is unthinkable to acknowledge there was a tragic and significant loss.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Two LDS scholars have explained the change (without acknowledging the loss) in these words:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Brigham Young and the other apostles amplified, redirected, and codified ritual adoption in the period immediately after Smith\u2019s death, integrating it into temple liturgy and employing it in part as a response to the contrary claims of Smith\u2019s biological family. The various stages of early adoption contain the themes, paradoxes, and tensions surrounding Joseph Smith\u2019s afterlife vision of a vast, sacerdotal family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u2026Adoption theology is a reminder that the idea world of early Mormons was in some ways strikingly different from that of the early twenty-first century. Understanding this aspect of early Mormonism on its own terms may be useful to our era\u2019s engagement of questions of human relationships and identity. (Samuel Brown and Jonathan Stapley, \u201cMormonism\u2019s Adoption Theology: An Introductory Statement,\u201d <em>Journal of Mormon History<\/em>, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.1-2)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Although active Latter-day Saints trust their church has retained and perpetuated restoration through Joseph Smith, history leads us to a contrary conclusion. When Joseph and Hyrum died, Brigham Young and his associates were in no position to \u201camplify, redirect, and codify\u201d ritual adoption as an authoritative ordinance binding on Earth and in Heaven, nor were they pursuing God\u2019s work when they made claims to compete with the Smith biological family for leadership of the church. And to the extent that the first days of the Restoration (when Joseph and Hyrum were involved) were \u201cstrikingly different\u201d from later twenty-first century Mormonism, that only confirms that something was lost and something else replaced it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From the history of the Restoration, we know the loose scriptural references to \u201cadoption connections to God\u201d found in the New Testament passages were clearly understood differently by Joseph Smith. He took formal steps, ritual requirements, and invoked sealing authority. It was not an effect of mere conversion and baptism. It required an ordinance. Although he administered such rites, the actual wording, method, and particulars involved were not recorded and, therefore, could not be continued following his death.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Gordon Irving wrote an article in <em>BYU Studies Magazine<\/em> explaining his understanding of \u201cadoption.\u201d He believed the idea began as something essentially the same as traditional Christianity understood it: \u201c&#8230;the process of adoption\u2026could be accomplished through baptism preceded by faith and repentance and accompanied by the holy ghost\u201d (\u201cThe Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830- 1900,\u201d <em>BYU Studies Quarterly: Vol. 14<\/em>: Iss. 3, Article 2, p.292).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The next step in early Mormonism, according to Irving, was adoption of the dead through baptism of the dead. He recognized that once sealing in marriages began in the 1840s, adoption was, in some undefined way, intended to link believers back to Adam:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">God, according to Mormon belief, had joined Adam and Eve for eternity as husband and wife and placed them at the head of the human family since their union was effected by the authority of God [and] their children were natural heirs of the priesthood and were born in the covenant and recognized by God as legitimate members of his family and legal heirs to his kingdom. As each new family came into being it became another link in the chain of families stretching back to Adam who was linked to God thus the family of God became more than metaphor. Exaltation depended on being part of that chain. (Ibid., 294)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Irving then makes this observation about the state of things:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u2026but while sealing was accepted doctrine by 1844 the Saints in general had little chance to become practically acquainted with the sealing doctrine prior to the death of Joseph Smith. Experience with the practice as well as [the] clarification of doctrine and procedure came only in the post Joseph Smith period of Mormon history. (Ibid., 295)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">One moment clarifying Joseph\u2019s divergence from traditional Christian, loose understanding of \u201cadoption\u201d occurred around October 1843, when Joseph Smith mentioned his use of sealing authority. Prior to then, sealings were nonspecific but are regarded by LDS scholars as marriages, although that conclusion is not altogether justified by the record. Because there was nothing in the records to distinguish between \u201csealing\u201d to effect an adoption to Joseph Smith and \u201csealing\u201d that was for marriage, it is impossible at this point to reconstruct a clear line of demarcation. LDS historians are carelessly inexact in their dogmatic assertions about Joseph Smith sealing plural marriages. The record does not require that conclusion. The LDS confusion about adoption has led them to rule out \u201csealing adoptions\u201d to explain early events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By October 1843, the records clearly show that Joseph was performing man-to-man sealings through adoption. The last eight months of his life, the records (poor as they are) let us conclude that Joseph \u201csealed or adopted\u201d other individuals to himself. There was no settled, formal ordinance preserved, and the proof of Joseph\u2019s practice is mostly post-mortem, as those who were exposed to the practice only vaguely recalled what he had done. Despite this, it is safe to conclude Joseph intended for there to be an ordinance and for it to have eternal effect. As he remarked: \u201cIf you have power to seal on earth &amp; in heaven then we should be Crafty, [and] the first thing you do is you go &amp; seal on earth your sons and daughters unto yourself, &amp; yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory\u201d (<em>Words of Joseph Smith<\/em>, p.331). This remark on 10 March 1844\u2014six months after the first time he mentioned \u201cadoption\u201d\u2014is clearly based on the idea of sealing \u201csons\u201d and \u201cdaughters\u201d and \u201cfathers.\u201d His comment illustrates how he viewed sealing is not only including marriage but also adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, after Joseph\u2019s death, that first generation did not understand what was to be done or how to implement adoption. They knew about it, intended to practice it, but had no clear idea of what to do or how. As historians have examined the topic, the historical lacunae have been backfilled with more speculation than fact, and adoption remains conjectural rather than understood. Some question whether it was practiced at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Unfortunately, there is some reason to believe adoption was one of the more critical ordinances of the Restoration. Jonathan Stapley has written \u201cAdoption Sealing Ritual in Mormonism\u201d to review what is understood about the subject. His account confesses:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It is unclear what Joseph Smith ultimately envisioned when he referred to the station of priest and king in his cosmology as the \u201cfulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood.\u201d He died before the completion of the Nauvoo Temple, and consequently it was left to the Quorum of the Twelve to transmit these concepts to the broader church. (<em>Journal of Mormon History,<\/em> Vol. 37, No. 3 [hereafter <em>JMH-Stapley<\/em>], p.58; footnotes omitted, spelling as in original)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Subsequent events showed how little the Quorum of the Twelve understood the subject, and ultimately, whatever Joseph Smith intended was abandoned. The Quorum President, shortly after Joseph Smith\u2019s death, stated at Winter Quarters, Nebraska, on February 16, 1847:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Lord introduced the law of adoption for the benefit of the children of men as a school master to bring them back into the covenant of the Priesthood. This Principle I am aware is not clearly understood by many of the Elders in th[e] Church at the present time as it will Hereafter be: And I confess that I have had only a smattering of those things but when it is necessary I will attain to more knowledge on the subject and consequently will be enabled to teach and practice more and will in the mean time glorify God the bountiful giver. (<em>The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 1, 1832-1852<\/em>, p.186 [hereafter <em>CDBY<\/em>])<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Keep in mind: Brigham Young said this in February 1847. All\u2014ALL\u2014 of the Nauvoo Temple rites performed by Latter-day Saints took place between November 1845 and February 1846, concluding more than a year before this talk by Brigham Young. This raises the question of exactly what ceremonial rite or ordinance was performed for adopting temple initiates during those three months. From the <em>Nauvoo Sealings, Adoptions and Anointings<\/em> record, we know of the adoptions that were performed in those months. I have provided a complete list in \u201cAppendix 1: Names and Dates of Nauvoo Adoptions,\u201d which appears at the end of this talk. I\u2019m not going to read them. The list includes those done in the Nauvoo Temple, but one writer explained that even more were done at Winter Quarters.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Because they were done, this raises the question of what, exactly, did adoption rites include when performed by the Twelve in 1845-46 after Joseph and Hyrum\u2019s death? A late account from the memory of George Laub preserves this description:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This order of Adoption will Link the chain of the Priesthood in such a way that cannot be separated by covananting before god, Angels and the Present witnesses we covenant together for him to be a father unto those who are sealed to him to doo unto them as he would in his own children and to councell them in rituousness and to teach them all the Principles of Salvation and to share unto them of all the Blessings to confert these and all that are calculated to make them happy Both in time and in Eternity. Now we also did covenant on our side to do all the good for his upbuilding and happyness Both in time &amp; Eternity [and] this was done in the hous of the Lord across the alter as was Preparted for this Purpos of ordinances. (George Laub, \u201cReminiscences and Journal, February 5, 1846,\u201d <em>JMH-Stapley<\/em>, p.73, all as in original)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">What I just read you has a massive amount of misspellings, but that\u2019s exactly how it was written in the journal. So I didn\u2019t touch it; \u201call as in original.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This account summarizes the rite but only paraphrases and does not attempt to quote the language used. The best information I have been able to locate so far on the wording of how adoption ceremony was conducted in the Nauvoo Temple comes from a record of sealings and adoptions maintained by the Utah Family History Library. From that record, we have the following transcript of a ceremony for the adoption of John Bernhisel:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This day came to the sacred Altar, in the upper room of the \u201cHouse of the Lord,\u201d founded by Prest. Joseph Smith (martyred) the Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Church, and thereupon gave himself to President Joseph Smith (martyred) to become his son by the Law of Adoption, and to become a legal heir to all the blessings bestowed upon Joseph Smith pertaining to exaltations, even to the eternal Godhead, with a solemn covenant to observe all the rights and ordinances pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, as far as now is or shall hereafter be made know[n] unto him. Done in the presence of Patriarch John Smith, President Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Amasa Lyman, Orson Hyde, \u2026George A. Smith, Franklin D. Richards, Clerk. (\u201cSEALINGS AND ADOPTIONS, 1846-1857,\u201d <em>Utah Family History Library Special Collections<\/em>, pp.145-146, all as in original)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Another historian reconstructed the rite used in Nauvoo as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Bernhisel\u2019s family continued to expand in Nauvoo. On February 3, 1846, Bernhisel \u201ccame to the sacred Alt[a]r in the upper room of the \u2018House of the Lord\u2019 . . . and there upon gave himself to Prest. Joseph Smith (martyred) to become his son by the law of adoption and to become a legal heir to all the blessings bestowed upon Joseph Smith pertaining to exaltations even unto the eternal Godhead.\u201d In this rite, the now-dead Prophet became Bernhisel\u2019s sacerdotal father. The final phrase in this ritual adoption ceremony\u2014one that would involve scores of Latter-day Saints through the nineteenth century\u2014made clear that the ultimate destination of these familial connections was \u201cexaltations\u201d that would extend all the way to the \u201ceternal Godhead\u201d through \u201clegal heir[ship].\u201d (Samuel M. Brown, \u201cEarly Mormon Adoption Theology and the Mechanics of Salvation,\u201d <em>Journal of Mormon History,<\/em> Vol. 37, No. 3, p.4)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Essentially, this form of the \u201cordinance\u201d attempts to link the candidate to <em>whatever<\/em> God \u201cbestowed upon Joseph Smith pertaining to exaltations, even to the eternal Godhead.\u201d It also includes a loophole in case that language proves to be insufficient. The loophole includes a precaution against insufficient language in the rite by adding: \u201cas far as now is or shall hereafter be made known,\u201d in an attempt to leave the door open for perhaps further light and knowledge at an undetermined future date. Apparently, this would allow for the later \u201cbackdating\u201d of an ordinance using priestly fiat to fix any earlier omissions or mistakes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These are two examples of our best remaining descriptions of the form of the ordinance language took after the death of Joseph Smith, based on the available LDS records. Assuming these are accurate, it is little wonder Brigham Young would acknowledge that adoption \u201cis not clearly understood by many of the Elders in th[e] Church at the present time as it will Hereafter be: And I confess that I have [only had] a smattering of those things\u2026\u201d Not only were the words for adoption poorly preserved, we also lack clear language for <em>marriage<\/em> sealing from Joseph Smith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It is understandable, given the uncertainty surrounding this adoption language, that Brigham Young, a year after the Nauvoo Temple rites had concluded, said that the leaders did not know how to practice adoption rites. They may have been in doubt about the matter but had proceeded, despite that uncertainty, to make gestures in that direction. It is safe to say their actions affirm that Joseph Smith did indeed intend for adoptions to be part of the restored Gospel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In February 1847 at Winter Quarters, what was understood about adoption was connected to tying mankind back to Adam. A link had been broken and needed to be restored. Brigham Young explained his understanding at that time:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I have gathered a number of families around me through the law of adoption and seal of the covenant according to the order of the priesthood and others have done likewise, it being the means of salvation left to bring us back to God. But had the keys of the priesthood been retained and handed down from father to son throughout all generations up to the present time then there could have been no necessity of the law of adoption, for we would all been included in the covenant without it and would have been legal heirs instead of being heirs according to promise. \u2026man through apostasy (which is entire disobedience) has lost or suffered the keys and privileges of the priesthood to be taken away from them and they left to wander in darkness and practice all manner of wickedness until thousands [have] bec[o]me the vessels of wrath and were doomed to destruction\u2026 I will extend the chain of\u2026priesthood back through apostolic dispensation to Father Adam just as soon as I can get a Temple built. (<em>CDBY,<\/em> 1:179-180)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Given this recognition of the importance of adoption, it is curious that Brigham Young would leave it an unresolved matter through the end of his life. He clearly expected to gain more understanding at a later time. However, the hoped-for knowledge Brigham Young anticipated might be given to him to clear up the confusion did not come, at least insofar as he disclosed. He did report a week later, in February 1847, that he had a dream in which Joseph Smith visited him, but instead of providing guidance, Joseph said, \u201cTell the people to be humble and faithful, and be sure to keep the spirit of the Lord, and it will lead them right.\u201d Although no instruction was given about how to perform the needed rites, Brigham Young said that the concluding words of Joseph in that dream were:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Be sure to tell the people to keep the Spirit of the Lord; and if they will, they will find themselves just as they were organized by our Father in Heaven before they came into the world\u2026 Our Father in Heaven organized the human family, but they are all disorganized and in great confusion. (<em>CDBY,<\/em> 1:188)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Because adoption is shrouded in mystery for leaders of the LDS Church and its historians, that institution has been unable to implement Joseph Smith\u2019s adoption sealing practice or even provide a proper context. Their account of history does not explain what it was or how it fit into the religion Joseph was at one time restoring. Therefore, they are also unable to provide the required ordinance, and for over a century, their only practice in temple adoption is to seal children born outside of a temple marriage to their parents. As for adoption to the family of God, the LDS Church now follows the traditional Christian understanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Stapley correctly notes in his article that the practice of the original adoption rite in Nauvoo endured a 31-year hiatus between the abandonment of the Nauvoo Temple and the 1877 dedication of the St. George Temple. When adoptions did resume, the practice differed from what had been done earlier in Nauvoo. What was done in the Nauvoo Temple before the exodus from Illinois began at the end of November 1845 (17 months after Joseph Smith was slain) and was dependent on recollections of Joseph\u2019s earlier conduct that could be gathered by the Twelve. The more time passed, the less clear the adoption practice became, until ultimately the original attempt was essentially abandoned in 1894.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The LDS Church was more candid in the 1800s than it is today. From early candor to \u2192 more modest circumspection to \u2192 outright concealment of the failure, LDS history shows that as time passes from Joseph Smith to the present, LDS leaders are increasingly willing to publicly reassure followers that they know what they are doing. I accept as candid and truthful Brigham Young\u2019s 1847 confession that he did not understand it. I question the current LDS claims to have all the keys and knowledge to be able to save families.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Nearly a decade after Joseph\u2019s death, when temple ceremonial work resumed in the Endowment House in Salt Lake, Brigham Young declared adoption the crowning ordinance. It was more important than other temple rites, including washing, anointing, endowment, and marriage sealing:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This Chain must not [be] broken for mankind Cannot be saved [in] any other way. This Priesthood must be linked together so that all the Children may be linked to Father Adam. \u2026we will seal men to men by the keys of the Holy Priesthood. This is the highest ordinance. It is the last ordinance of the kingdom of God on\u2026earth and above all the endowments that can be given you. It is a final sealing an Eternal Principle and when once made cannot be broken by the Devil. (<em>CDBY<\/em>, 2:1033-1034)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Seventeen years later, Brigham Young explained that while other ordinances could be without a temple, adoption was confined to temples alone: \u201c&#8230;when we come to other sealing ordinances\u2026they cannot be done without a Temple\u2026 We can seal women to men, but not men to men\u201d (<em>CDBY<\/em>, 5:1873). There was clearly some qualitative difference between sealing marriages and sealing adoptions in Young\u2019s understanding. It was apparently a different order of magnitude in meaning and effect. Yet marriage sealings continue today in LDS temples, while men-to-men sealings have disappeared.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In his January 1856 talk, Brigham Young taught that the \u201cturning of [the] hearts [of] the fathers\u201d foretold by Malachi could be fulfilled only through adoption. He also taught that God\u2019s promise to Abraham regarding \u201chis seed\u201d would be fulfilled only through the temple ordinance of adoption. Despite repeated attempts, LDS Church leaders were unable to sort out how to practice adoption.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In January 1857, Wilford Woodruff recorded Heber C. Kimball\u2019s uncertainty about attempting adoptions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I spent the day in the office. \u2026H.C. Kimball Cam\u2026 &amp; read a letter to his Brother Solomon. Then He set down &amp; taught us good doctrin. He said that He did not Believe in this custom of Adoption\/\\ that had been practiced in this Church. No man should give his Birthright to another but should keep his birthright in the linage of his Fathers &amp; go to\u2026unite the link through the whole linage of [the] fathers untill they come up to a man in the Linage who held the priesthood. (<em>Wilford Woodruff\u2019s Journal 1833-1898<\/em>, Vol. 5, p.3)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Despite misgivings, adoptions continued. For decades, despite uncertainty about what to do, how to do it, and why it ought to be done, adoptions still continued to be performed.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At a meeting of the reorganized School of the Prophets in January of 1868, attended by Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, Daniel Wells, along with Elders John Taylor, Orson Hyde, George Smith, Erastus Snow, George Q. Cannon, Phineas Young, and Joseph Young, adoption was discussed. President Wells conjectured: \u201cOn Adoption he supposed it had reference to the linking together of the Priesthood\u2026that it might reach back to the link that had long since been broken, that it might present one unbroken chain\u201d (<em>Salt Lake School of the Prophets: 1867-1883<\/em>, pp.11-12; quoted as in original). In response, Orson Hyde said, \u201cThe Doctrine of Adoption he knew but little about and should decline touching it until the line is chalked out\u201d (ibid., p.12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Scholars struggle to make sense of what Joseph was doing. The attempts to reconstruct Joseph\u2019s adoption have been insufficient to provide any firm understanding of what took place, how, or why. Thirty years before he would become the church president, Wilford Woodruff concluded that adoptions would be a project for the resurrected Joseph Smith to sort out during the Millennium. \u201cMan also will have to be sealed to man until the chain is united from Father Adam down to the last Saint. This will be the work of the Millennium, and Joseph Smith will be the man to attend to it or dictate it\u201d (ibid., p.42).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A half-century after Joseph\u2019s death, the LDS apostles struggled to determine how it ought to work, who should be sealed to whom, how, and even what effect it would have in the afterlife. In a meeting on June 1, 1893, attended by Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Francis Lyman, John W. Taylor, Marriner Merrill, Abraham Cannon, George F. Gibbs, John McAllister, Nephi <s>Cannon<\/s> [Clayton], and James Jack, they \u201chad some talk about the ordinance of adoption in the temple. Joseph F. Smith said Pres. [Brigham] Young had told him to follow in ordinance work for the dead the rules which will [originally] ordinarily govern similar work for the living\u201d (<em>Candid Insights of a Mormon Apostle: The Diaries of Abraham H. Cannon, 1889-1895<\/em>, p.388).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The practice was to seal faithful children to their parents, and faithful parents to Joseph Smith. Woodruff explained, \u201cI was sealed to my father, and then had him sealed to the Prophet Joseph\u201d (ibid., p.488).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The concept of adoption affected how people understood the afterlife. This led some people to view adoption as a means to pursue self-interest. People began to aspire to improve their post-mortality by recruiting and acquiring descendants through adoption. John D. Lee had begun recruiting others to be his adopted descendants before the migration west and continued recruiting during the migration west. He had adopted a number of others in the Nauvoo Temple rites:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Law of Adaption tended on\u20265th of February 1846 I and my wife Mary Jane with many others was Adopted into John D Lee\u2019s family. this I took upon myself [in] the Name of Lee in th[e] manner George Laub Lee &amp; my wifes Name Mary Jane Laub Lee this order of Adaption will like the chain of\u2026Prieshood in such a way that it cannot be seperated by covenanting before god Angels and the Present witnesses we covanant together for him to be as father unto those who are sealed to him [and] to doo unto them as he would unto his own children and to councell them in rituousness and to teach them all the Principles of Salvation\u2026to share unto them\u2026all the Blessings [and] comfort\u2026that [they] are calculated to make them happy\u2026im time and in Eternity. (<em>George Laub Journal<\/em>, 5 Feb. 1846, pp.165-166, all as in original)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the attached Appendix 1, there are twenty-three names of individuals sealed in adoptions on 5 February 1846 by Amasa Lyman. The list of names includes George and Mary Jane Laub.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">George Laub was recruited by John D. Lee to become his adoption son, as his journal recounts: \u201c&#8230;now in this time I agreed to goe in to John D. Lee\u2019s family as to the Law of Adoption through his persuation [sic] according to the celestial law\u201d (ibid., p.164).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">John D. Lee was not alone in recruiting others to be adopted. Aspiring men believed it could be turned to their personal advantage in the next life. It got very ugly. As Gordon Irving described it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u2026some were more interested in being fathers and exercising authority over others then they were in being sons of God. Kingdom-building, or the gathering together of a large number of people over whom one could rule in eternity, enjoyed a good deal of popularity. Brigham Young complained: \u201cwere I to say to the elders you now have the liberty to build up your [own] kingdoms, one half of them would lie, swear, steal\u2026fight like the very devil to get men and women sealed to them. They would even try to pass right by me and go to Jos[eph].\u201d (<em>Law of Adoption<\/em>, p.302, citations omitted)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Logan Temple president was told to end his practice of recruiting adoptees. Eventually, President Wilford Woodruff announced a final adoption practice on April 8, 1894: \u201cPres. Woodruff announced the doctrine of the sealing of children to parents as far back as it is possible to trace the genealogy, and then [to] seal the last member to the Prophet Joseph [Smith]\u201d (<em>George Laub Journal<\/em>, p.496).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Family relationships were determined by sealing, not by biology. For example, Heber J. Grant was the biological son of Jedediah Grant, but because his mother was sealed to Joseph Smith, he was regarded as Joseph Smith\u2019s son.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">So it is apparent that what Joseph Smith understood about adoption was not clearly communicated to subsequent church leaders. They could not preserve the practice intact. In September 1887, two months after John Taylor died, his son-in-law, John M. Whitaker, wrote in his diary:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">President Taylor said he knew nothing about [adoption]. And also just lately when asked by Brother Snow, President Wilford Woodruff knew nothing about it. [\u201c]It hadn\u2019t been revealed to him.\u201d I know this at this time to say [or show] a prevailing feeling among the Twelve that they don\u2019t understand it. George\u2026Cannon also said he didn\u2019t understand it. (John M. Whitaker, <em>Diary, Book No. 4<\/em>, November 16, 1887, pp.101-102)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As John Taylor\u2019s health declined in the last month of his life, Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal on June 8, 1887: \u201cI wrote 4 Letters to Jaques Emma Clara &amp; Roskelly. I did not rest well. To [sic] much deep thinking to Sleep\u201d (<em>Wilford Woodruff\u2019s Journals, Vol. 8: 1 January 1881 to 31 December 1888<\/em>, p.441).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Roskelly was employed as the recorder in the Logan, Utah temple. That letter included the following mention of adoption:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">So in relation to Adoptions, most, if not all, of the Presidency and Twelve, have had men adopted to them, and all these Sealings and Adoptions are for the Salvation of the living and the dead. I have never asked any man to be adopted into my family that I can recollect of; but I have had a number of families of friends adopted into my family, as have other men, without any regard to whether it will, in the future, cost me one dollar or a million. What we have done in this matter has been for the salvation of man. It may possibly be a correct doctrine that a man\u2019s Kingdom will consist [only of] the fruit of his own loins. Yet Jesus Christ died to save the whole world, and if we, as Apostles and Elders, do nothing for the human family only for the fruit of our own loins, we shall not do much towards magnifying the Holy Priesthood God has given us for saving the souls of men\u2014either the living or the dead\u2026 I have adopted this rule in Sealing and Adoptions: to take such as the Lord has given me, and leave the result[s] in His [hand] \u2026Paul talked a good deal about Adoptions, but we did not understand much about it, until the Lord revealed it to Joseph Smith, and we may not, perhaps, understand it now as fully as we should. Still the Sealings and Adoptions are true principles, or our Prophets have been badly deceived. (<em>JMH-Stapely<\/em> p.103)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Because of uncertainty, adoption became increasingly controversial over time. Since the idea was not well understood by LDS Church leaders, they could provide no answers to questions on the subject. Bishop Edward Bunker denounced the idea altogether, resulting in an 1892 church court that the LDS Church President Woodruff and one of his counselors attended. The former bishop was charged with teaching false doctrine and, in his defense, wrote a letter to the high council stating:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The adoption of one man to another out of the lineage, I do not understand and for that reason I would not enter into it. And adopting the dead to the living is as adopting the father to the son. I don\u2019t believe there is a man on earth that thoroughly understands the principle. If there is, I have never heard it taught as I could understand it. I believe it is permmited [sic] more to satisfy the minds of\u2026people for the present until the Lord reveals more fully the principle. (<em>Edward Bunker Autobiography<\/em>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In his summary of the court, Wilford Woodruff relegated adoption to one of the \u201cmysteries\u201d that church members ought to avoid discussing because they cause difficulties. He wrote: \u201cJune 11, 1892 We Met in the Tabernacle at 10 oclock on the trial of Bishop Bunker on Doctrin. We talked to them Plainly of the impropriety of indulging in Misteries to Create difficulties among the Saints. They professed to be Satisfied\u201d (<em>Wilford Woodruff\u2019s Journal<\/em>, 9:203, all as in original).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Although John Taylor perpetuated the practice, it gradually diminished and then disappeared, beginning with Wilford Woodruff\u2019s presidency. Woodruff changed the policy in April 1894 to seal within biological families as far back as known, then to seal\/adopt the last parents to Joseph Smith. This made adoption less of an issue and the genealogical search for ancestors of greater concern. By 1922, the de-emphasis on adoption allowed it to be ignored altogether. The practice Woodruff announced in 1894 was then deleted from the account published by the Utah Genealogical Society and from James Clark\u2019s <em>Messages of The First Presidency<\/em>. Today, adoption has vanished from the LDS Church, and it was never practiced by the RLDS or other branches of the Restoration. It is nevertheless a part of the Gospel, and an ordinance is required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Nearly a half-century later, the LDS president remained in no better position to understand or practice it. Wilford Woodruff was among the first generations of converts, an early apostle, and the fourth church president. Despite his background and personal proximity to the events, he could not provide any clarity on adoption. In his April 1894 General Conference talk titled \u201cThe Law of Adoption,\u201d he made this candid acknowledgment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">But he [Brigham Young] did not receive all the revelations that belong to this work; neither did President Taylor, nor has Wilford Woodruff. There will be no end to this work until it is perfected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u2026We have not fully carried out those principles in fulfillment of the revelations of God to us, in sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt\u2026there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In contrast to earlier candor, the LDS Church today claims it can and does seal families through the broad authority termed \u201cpriesthood keys.\u201d Although the term \u201ckeys\u201d was not clearly defined by Joseph Smith, nevertheless, the LDS Church describes keys as follows:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Priesthood keys held by the Lord\u2019s servants authorize them to direct how priesthood authority and power are used in the work of salvation and exaltation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood pertaining to His Church. He has conferred upon each of His Apostles all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on earth. The President of the Church is the only person authorized to exercise all those priesthood keys.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Temple presidents, mission presidents, stake presidents, bishops, and quorum presidents also hold priesthood keys that allow them to preside over and direct the work they have been commissioned to do. Because of the keys of the priesthood, we can have access to the ordinances, covenants, blessings, and powers we need in order to return to live with our Heavenly Father and our Savior and become like Them.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(<a href=\"https:\/\/www.churchofjesuschrist.org\/study\/manual\/gospel-topics\/priesthood-keys-study-guide?lang=eng\">https:\/\/www.churchofjesuschrist.org\/study\/manual\/gospel-topics\/priesthood-keys-study-guide?lang=eng<\/a>)&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(Yeah, but you\u2019re gonna go off like a match-head.) [laughter] Oh, I\u2019m sorry. Did I just say that out loud? [more laughter]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Taken at face value, this seems good enough. But there is nothing in LDS teachings today that practices or even allows us to understand exactly how adoption into the lineage of Abraham could happen. That sort of linking back to the patriarchal fathers and Adam is not part of their current faith. The prophecy of Malachi has been interpreted to mean sealing marriages. The only adoption sealings now taking place are for children sealed to parents when born into marriages celebrated outside an LDS temple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Between the original Nauvoo adoptive sealing to Joseph Smith and the current LDS practice of tracking genealogical\/biological lines, there was that intermediate step when families were tracked back as far as research permitted, and then the line was sealed to Joseph Smith. That intermediate practice is now forgotten and, certainly, no longer practiced. The growing uncertainty, redefinition, and abandonment of the practice of \u201cadoption\u201d are traced by Jonathan Stapley in his <em>Journal of Mormon History<\/em> article. His article demonstrates how quickly the topic became confused. He writes Lorenzo Snow, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, George Cannon, and Eliza R. Snow did not understand adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">His article observes, \u201cthe idea of linking to Joseph Smith was eventually dismissed or forgotten\u201d (<em>JMH-Stapley<\/em> pp.113-114). He cites the deliberate decision in 1922 to remove reference to Woodruff\u2019s instruction to seal genealogical lines to Joseph Smith. Today, Mormons know nothing about the practice, nor the importance of the earlier Joseph Smith doctrine of adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The alarming oddity of this modern innovation becomes most apparent when the original reason for adoption is remembered. It was intended to avoid <em>the whole earth [being] utterly wasted<\/em> (JSH 1:39 LE) at the Lord\u2019s return. That is, the Second Coming of Christ will destroy the wicked on <em>th[at] great and dreadful day<\/em> (v.38). <em>For behold, the day cometh that shall burn [them] as an oven, \u2026all the proud, \u2026all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch<\/em> (v.37). Joseph taught that the connection allowing living men and women to endure the day of burning was intimately connected with a priestly tie between the living children and the coming \u201cfathers\u201d who will return in consuming glory. Joseph explained that unless the living who greet them are recognized as \u201cchildren\u201d through adoption as a component of their priesthood, they will burn as stubble. It goes back to Abraham, whose posterity would include any and all who received the same Gospel and priesthood given Abraham. Everyone who receives the Gospel after his day would be <em>accounted [his] seed, and shall rise up and bless [him], as their father<\/em> (Abraham 2:10 LE). It will be through Abraham\u2019s <em>seed (that is [his] Priesthood)<\/em>&#8230;(v.11) that the world will be preserved. Only in this manner would the families of the Earth be preserved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Therefore, when knowledge about adoption was lost, so was the chance to avoid destruction on the coming day when those who return will burn them up. On that day, only those whose \u201chearts are turned to the fathers\u201d (who are regarded as their children and held in remembrance by the \u201cfathers\u201d) will be able to endure the glory that would otherwise \u201cburn them as stubble, leaving neither root nor branch.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Brigham Young admitted he did not understand the doctrine. Inexplicably, he taught that these matters would be attended to and sorted out after the Lord\u2019s return in glory and during the Millennium. He knew it needed to be done, didn\u2019t know how to do it, and concluded that when Joseph returned through the resurrection, it would all be sorted out. Brigham Young seemed oblivious to the problem of the timing. If it would be sorted out after Joseph\u2019s resurrection, it would be too late for those who were reduced to ashes by the Lord\u2019s return. Young taught:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After Joseph comes to us in his resurrected body He will more fully instruct us concerning the Baptism for the dead and the sealing ordinances. He will say be baptized for this man and that man and that man be sealed to that man and such a man to such a man, and connect the Priesthood together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I tell you their will not be much of this done until Joseph comes. He is our spiritual Father. Our hearts are already turned to him and his to us. This [is] the order of the\u2026Priesthood and we shall continue to administer in the ordinances of the kingdom of God here on earth. (<em>CDBY,<\/em> 2:1034)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The obvious defect in Young\u2019s understanding is the pre-Millennial return of Christ, and the return of the \u201cfathers\u201d to a group that has not prepared for their return in advance. The preparation must precede the return. In other words, if they are not prepared and not recognized as descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through sealing to the \u201cfathers,\u201d they\u2019ll be burned. The Gospel was restored primarily to prepare a people for the Lord\u2019s return. To say the preparation will happen sometime after the return, during the Millennium, suggests the coming day which will \u201cburn them up\u201d is inconsequential or can be ignored with impunity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In today\u2019s LDS faith, Joseph\u2019s \u201cadoption\u201d theology has been transformed into something altogether different. It is biological and genealogical, not priestly and dispensational. The church now markets itself as an institution that will \u201cstrengthen families.\u201d It does not inform its members or prospective converts that the day will come when they will be burned up unless they have connected to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through Hyrum Smith as the head of the Holy Order in a necessary priestly ordinance. This teaching is one example that shows how distant today\u2019s Mormonism is from Joseph\u2019s original vision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">If adoption is, as Brigham Young thought in 1856, the highest ordinance, above all the endowments that can be given, and if it is needed for the Gospel as taught by Abraham to be restored, then the loss of adoption rites is indeed a sign of apostasy. Brigham Young taught that adoption would bind a person beyond the devil\u2019s power to break. But adoption was abandoned before the end of the 1800s. Adoption needed to be restored as a rite with an accompanying authoritative ordinance and sealing in order for the things Joseph Smith alone understood and taught to be renewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There is still more restoration needed than adoption alone. The LDS Church has attempted to preserve other ordinances Joseph Smith established. Unfortunately, those ordinances have also been poorly preserved, changed, and compromised.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Joseph did not live to complete the Nauvoo temple, nor did he complete the temple ceremonies. Thirty-three years after Joseph died, Brigham Young explained that he was the one who completed the ceremony using what he could recall from Joseph\u2019s initiation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u2026when we got our washings and anointings under the hands of the Prophet Joseph at Nauvoo, we had only one room to work in with the exception of a little side room, or office, where we were washed and anointed, had our garments placed upon us, and received our new name. And after he had performed th[o]se ceremonies, he gave the key words, signs, tokens and penalties. Then, after we went into the large room over the store in Nauvoo, Joseph divided up the room [as] best\u2026he could, hung up the veil, marked it. Gave us our instructions as we passed along from one department to another, giving us signs, tokens, penalties, with the key words pertaining to those signs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After we had got through Bro. Joseph turned to me (Pres. Young) and said, \u201cBro. Brigham this is not arranged right but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and key words.\u201d I did so, and each time I got something more, so that when we went through the temple at Nauvoo I understood and knew how to place them there. We had our ceremonies pretty correct. (<em>CDBY,<\/em> 5:3104)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Nah, he probably said, \u201cPRETTY CORRECT!!!\u201d I think it should be read [noting uncertainty], \u201c\u2026priiiittty correct\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Joseph had not fully completed the required ordinances, and Brigham Young never had the ability to accomplish what was needed!&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Okay, to illustrate the catastrophe, I wanna use the three Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham. Before doing so, let me explain that the Egyptian religion was apostate from the first dynasty. Although it \u201csought earnestly to imitate\u201d the religion of the first fathers, it was unable to do so because the founder was excluded from the Holy Order. Therefore, Egypt preserved echoes, and those help us identify some of the characteristics from the beginning. But we cannot reconstruct the original using the remnants that remained in Egypt. The original imitative effort then became progressively less accurate and authentic over the generations.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The first Facsimile illustrates the idea of obedience, sacrifice, rejecting false gods, calling upon God, and deliverance. It is the first stage to be accomplished in mortality and was the focus of the \u201cendowment\u201d Joseph was restoring in the red brick store.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The second Facsimile is referred to as a hypocephalus. It was a funerary addition\u2014perhaps beginning around 400 B.C.\u2014and a guide adopted as part of the <em>Book of Breathings<\/em> (at least in the <em>Book of Breathings<\/em> era). It was a layout to help the dead navigate through the afterlife. \u201cIt has been designated by various scholars as serving various but related purposes\u2014as a passport, certificate, travel guide, road map, ticket, and so forth\u201d (Hugh Nibley and Michael Rhodes, <em>One Eternal Round<\/em>, p.139). Facsimile 2 depicts an underworld in the lower third, along with the heavenly barque showing movement through the six divisions, the seventh being the underworld shown in the lower third. Hugh Nibley described it as,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u2026a crowded representation of the cosmic drama, containing with[in] its circular rim the \u201cdesigns of deep significance\u201d that indicate the starry heavens in their times and seasons, and showing by cunning, half-abstract figures the circle of the universe and what is in it\u2014or so at least Joseph Smith explained it, though there are no conventional indications of heavenly bodies in the drawing[s], as there are in other hypocephali. Most conspicuous is the division into two antithetical halves, the one the reverse or mirror image of the other. The top two-thirds are solar in nature, showing the great orbs of light in the upper heavens and their times and degrees, amidst symbols of patriarchal creativity and governance, as is explained by the captions. The lower third of the circle is the reverse or mirror image of the other. There [are] earth forces, the female powers of creation, are in evidence, as represented \u201cin the lower [region]\u2026\u201d (Hugh Nibley, <em>Abraham in Egypt<\/em>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The central figure of Facsimile 2 is the throne of God, the center place to which association and ascension was directed. The Facsimile has seven panels, which correspond to the ceremonial ascension that prepares the initiate for the journey in the afterlife. \u201cThe seven panels are consistent with the seven heavens of the ascension texts, the seven chambers of the Hekaloth, etc.\u201d (ibid., p.599). Joseph never completed that portion of the temple instruction or rites, although he did have a \u201cthrone theophany\u201d and had the commission to accomplish it. Nor was Joseph Smith able to provide the final stage of the temple rites as depicted in Facsimile 3.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That facsimile depicts the final destination of the ascension, the Throne Room of God. The scene shows Abraham as having accomplished the journey, and therefore, he is able to <em>[reason] upon the principles of astronomy in the king\u2019s court<\/em> (Facsimile 3, comment below Fig. 6 describing the entire scene). Although Joseph did not have time to complete the temple rites, he was able to point in the right direction using the Book of Abraham Facsimiles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Also, although Joseph Smith did not complete the ritual ascent in a formalized ceremonial process, he clearly understood it was to involve kingship. He took concrete steps toward formal kingship by organizing the Council of Fifty. But he never had the opportunity to complete what he began. It is not an easy thing to restore again all that needs to be returned, and Joseph was exposed to things in Heaven that required time and experience to be able to understand and teach. Establishing \u201ckingship\u201d was never completed or adequately taught.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Joseph planned for the Council of Fifty as the means for establishing the Kingdom of God on Earth. That effort began in March 1844, but Joseph and Hyrum were killed less than three months after the first meeting of the Council of Fifty. All of the records of the Council of the Fifty were supposed to have been destroyed, but apparently William Clayton retained a copy.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It is important to understand the Council of Fifty was distinct from the church. The \u201cKingdom of God\u201d was to be developed through the Council, and the church was separate from the \u201cKingdom.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On April 11, 1844, that Council\u2019s meeting included remarks from Joseph Smith:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The design was to form a Theocracy according to the will of Heaven, planted without any intention to interfere with any government of the world. We wish to have nothing to do with them. We have no violence to offer to governments, no rights to infringe. The object is to live so far above their laws that they cannot interfere with us, unless by violence. We will hunt a spot somewhere on\u2026earth where no other government has jurisdiction and cannot interfere with us and there plant our standard. (<em>The Joseph Smith Papers: Administrative Records<\/em>, p.88, footnotes omitted)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Later in that same meeting, Joseph Smith explained:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Theocracy as [Joseph] understands it is, for the people to get the voice of God and then [to] acknowledge it, and see it executed. It is necessary for the council to exhaust their wisdom and except they do [that] they will never know but they are as wise as God himself, and ambitious men will, like Lucifer think they are as wise as God and\u2026try to lift themselves up and put their foot on the necks of others. There has always been some man to put himself forward and say I am the great [one]&#8230; (Ibid., p.92, minutes of April 11, 1844)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After further discussion in the Council, Elder Erastus Snow stood up and made a motion. The minutes state: \u201cHe concluded by offering a motion that this honorable assembly receive from this time henceforth and forever, Joseph Smith, as our Prophet, Priest &amp; King, and uphold him in that capacity in which God has anointed him. The motion was seconded and accepted unanimously\u201d (ibid.<em>,<\/em> pp.95-96).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Within the Council of Fifty, Joseph Smith was thereafter recognized as the \u201cKing\u201d over the incipient Kingdom of God. Had Joseph lived long enough to fully develop the concept of God\u2019s kingdom, it seems likely to me that a different approach would have prevailed in time. He was clearly willing to patiently and cautiously begin something, even if it would require rethinking and revising over time.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Pres<sup>t<\/sup>. Joseph Smith arose to give some instructions to the council &amp; especially to the committee. He commenced by showing, that the reason why men always failed to establish important measures was, because in their organization they [could never] agree to disagree long enough to select the pure gold from the dross by the process of investigation. (Ibid., p.79, minutes of April 4, 1844)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Had he lived long enough, I doubt there would have been any earthly \u201ckingship\u201d or earthly \u201ckingdom\u201d made permanent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I say that with some confidence because of the Lord\u2019s discussion about His status with Pilate:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus and said unto him, Are you the king of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Do you say this thing of yourself? Or did others tell it to you of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Your own nation and\u2026chief priests have delivered you unto me. What have you done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews. But now is my kingdom not from here. Pilate therefore said unto him, Are you a king then? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king; to this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world \u2014 that I should bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that is of the truth hears my voice.<\/em> (John 10:7 RE)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">If the Lord did not intend to establish a kingdom in this world during His lifetime, I do not believe His followers ought to now make any attempt to do so. Of course, He will return and assume His role as King of kings and Lord of lords after He returns in the clouds of glory. But until then we should be more circumspect than Joseph was in mid-April 1844. At least I intend to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By saying this, I do not intend to criticize Joseph. He was only 38 years old when killed and deprived of an opportunity to carefully develop the idea of kingship that is embedded within the Holy Order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Additionally, we have the absolute proscription of establishing a king upon this land. The Covenant of Christ forbids it. The passage there says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>This land will be a land of liberty for the Gentiles, \u2026there won\u2019t be any kings on the land who will oppress the Gentiles. I\u2019ll fortify this land against all other nations. God has said: Those who fight against Zion will be destroyed. Those who try to establish a king in place of Me will perish, because I the Lord, the King of Heaven, will be their king; \u2026I\u2019ll be a light [un]to those who hear My words forever.<\/em> (2 Nephi 7:2 CE)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Book of Mormon, in that same passage in the original (I just read you the Modern English version) says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>And this land shall be a land of liberty [to] the gentiles, \u2026there shall be no kings upon the land who shall raise up unto the gentiles, \u2026I will fortify this land against all other nations. \u2026he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God, for he that raiseth up a king against me shall perish. \u2026I the Lord, the King of Heaven, will be their king, and I will be a light unto them for ever that hear my words.<\/em> (2 Nephi 7:2 RE)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Eventually, had those involved taken time to disagree long enough to find the pure gold, I believe there would have been no \u201cKingdom of God\u201d attempted. Instead, I think the order that would have been followed would have been familial and resembling the first generations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Remember, about a year and a half after the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum, Brigham began introducing the endowment to the general church membership. This was done using canvas partitions in the attic of the unfinished Nauvoo Temple. As these endowments proceeded, Brigham continued to make additions, changes, and alterations to the ceremony Joseph had introduced. By the time of the exodus from Nauvoo, over 5,000 members had been endowed. Endowment ordinances did not resume until 1852 in the Council House in <s>Nauvoo<\/s> [Utah] and then in the Endowment House, which was completed in 1855. However, nothing was done to revive adoptions until the St. George Temple was completed in 1877, thirty-one years after the last earlier Nauvoo adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">And so, we\u2019re gonna take a break, and I\u2019m gonna finish the talk\u2014now that we\u2019ve covered the background and the history and what went on before\u2014and maybe talk a little about what\u2019s coming. So, as I understand it, we\u2019ve got a 20-minute break. Is that the\u2026?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"http:\/\/82.180.131.98\/podcast\/transcripts\/2026.07.12_The-Holy-Order_Part-3-Adoption_Grand-Junction-CO_transcript.pdf\">TRANSCRIPT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Presented here is the first half of a talk by Denver Snuffer that was delivered at a general conference held in Grand Junction, Colorado, at the Avalon Theater on 12 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-podcast"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Holy Order, Part 3: Adoption - Pt. 1 - Restoration Archives Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Holy Order, Part 3: Adoption - Pt. 1 - Restoration Archives Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Presented here is the first half of a talk by Denver Snuffer that was delivered at a general conference held in Grand Junction, Colorado, at the Avalon Theater on 12 [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Restoration Archives Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-01T07:59:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Brent\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Brent\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"65 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/index.php\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/index.php\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Brent\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/46db62d50ae5b309db45c574d83ec46b\"},\"headline\":\"The Holy Order, Part 3: Adoption &#8211; Pt. 1\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-01T07:59:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/index.php\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":14779,\"commentCount\":0,\"articleSection\":[\"Light and Truth Podcast\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/index.php\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/index.php\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/index.php\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\\\/\",\"name\":\"The Holy Order, Part 3: Adoption - Pt. 1 - Restoration Archives Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-01T07:59:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/46db62d50ae5b309db45c574d83ec46b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/index.php\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/index.php\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/index.php\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Holy Order, Part 3: Adoption &#8211; Pt. 1\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Restoration Archives Blog\",\"description\":\"Recent developments in the preservation efforts.\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/46db62d50ae5b309db45c574d83ec46b\",\"name\":\"Brent\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/963cf404fd60fb26d505034e6563a627439380977d70137cc6859df5567cf437?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/963cf404fd60fb26d505034e6563a627439380977d70137cc6859df5567cf437?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/963cf404fd60fb26d505034e6563a627439380977d70137cc6859df5567cf437?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Brent\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/restorationarchives.com\\\/blog\\\/index.php\\\/author\\\/brent\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Holy Order, Part 3: Adoption - Pt. 1 - Restoration Archives Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Holy Order, Part 3: Adoption - Pt. 1 - Restoration Archives Blog","og_description":"Presented here is the first half of a talk by Denver Snuffer that was delivered at a general conference held in Grand Junction, Colorado, at the Avalon Theater on 12 [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/","og_site_name":"Restoration Archives Blog","article_published_time":"2026-09-01T07:59:00+00:00","author":"Brent","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Brent","Est. reading time":"65 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/"},"author":{"name":"Brent","@id":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/46db62d50ae5b309db45c574d83ec46b"},"headline":"The Holy Order, Part 3: Adoption &#8211; Pt. 1","datePublished":"2026-09-01T07:59:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/"},"wordCount":14779,"commentCount":0,"articleSection":["Light and Truth Podcast"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/","url":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/","name":"The Holy Order, Part 3: Adoption - Pt. 1 - Restoration Archives Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-09-01T07:59:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/46db62d50ae5b309db45c574d83ec46b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/09\/01\/the-holy-order-part-3-adoption-pt-1\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Holy Order, Part 3: Adoption &#8211; Pt. 1"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/","name":"Restoration Archives Blog","description":"Recent developments in the preservation efforts.","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/46db62d50ae5b309db45c574d83ec46b","name":"Brent","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/963cf404fd60fb26d505034e6563a627439380977d70137cc6859df5567cf437?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/963cf404fd60fb26d505034e6563a627439380977d70137cc6859df5567cf437?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/963cf404fd60fb26d505034e6563a627439380977d70137cc6859df5567cf437?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Brent"},"url":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/author\/brent\/"}]}},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9DrVi-mt","jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1393","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1393"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1393\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1399,"href":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1393\/revisions\/1399"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/restorationarchives.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}