Jump to content

Benjamin Seeker

Members
  • Content count

    514
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

364 Excellent

About Benjamin Seeker

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

946 profile views
  1. Understanding Adam-God

    I agree that there is a lot of mystery and unknown to it all. However, I've cited quotes from 1843 and 1844 that show JS was on a different track then Brigham.
  2. Understanding Adam-God

    I have given plenty of facts that disagree with you, and I'm a latecomer, meaning many before me have presented similar facts showing that JS doesn't harmonize with Brigham. That is one of the major reasons Adam-God is controversial to begin with.
  3. Understanding Adam-God

    Don't take this as confrontational, but, as you likely already know, yours is a minority opinion. Historians who have addressed the subject find tension between JS and Brigham. Another example, is that the mainstream LDS church has rejected Adam-God, in part because it doesn't harmonize easily with the scriptures. For example, Bruce R. Mckonkie acknowledged that Brigham taught Adam-God and then asserted that Brigham was incorrect. I personally don't believe revelation is as clean and as neat as you suggest. I find that the content of revelation is largely context specific, which would allow JS and Brigham to learn very different things from revelatory experiences, and would also allow for the multitude of contrasting revelatory experiences that exist in the religions and cultures of the world. I'm certainly not ignorant of their teachings, as hopefully I've demonstrated in our debate. I don't believe you are ignorant either. I think at the crux of our disagreement is an unshared ideology, the ideology that JS and Brigham were in doctrinal harmony.
  4. Understanding Adam-God

    You might be missing my point. Brigham and Joseph don’t agree, and we’ve demonstrated that in our back and forth. That is the typical of the development in religion. It’s not that I personally agree or disagree with anything. I just look at JS saying one thing and I look at Brigham saying another thing, and instead of harmonizing them, I look at the context and see what the most likely development was.
  5. Understanding Adam-God

    Yeah, a lot of things disagree in early Mormonism. That’s a natural part of development.
  6. Understanding Adam-God

    Sounds like we should agree to disagree on a number of issues, and that’s OK.
  7. Understanding Adam-God

    They aren’t! It’s just fun to dive in and figure it out. It took me a second to understand what you were getting at with the first quote, but once it dawned on me it’s pretty convincing! I’m stealing that all the way. And the second quote is a fantastic example countering Brigham’s Adam-God. Thanks!
  8. What's Up With the Forum?

    I had an issue earlier this week where I couldn't post. I switched devices to solve the problem.
  9. Understanding Adam-God

    Sorry if it came across like I missed your point. I understood. Your position is that JS taught Adam-God in the same form that Brigham did. My position is that he almost certainly did not. I am familiar with your quote on Brigham saying JS taught it; I also quoted it and other relevant quotes in my first post in this thread. I find that there are big discrepancies between the recorded teachings of Joseph Smith and what Brigham said, which make it very unlikely JS taught Adam-God, at least in the form Brigham taught. I don't think these differences can be harmonized. I should clarify that I approach all of this like a historian, not as someone trying to prescribe or proscribe a specific belief system for myself or others. I apologize if I've come off negatively. Your right; there is no need to bicker. However, I am interested in arriving to the truth of the matter, and I don't think the differences should be minimized as a pecking order. If Brigham believed that Adam was God the Father and Joseph didn't, then that is certainly worth discussing, debating, etc. I disagree, as a matter of history, that this big picture you're describing is what JS arrived to in the 1840s. The only explicit contemporary evidence we have on the roles of exaltion is JS teaching that celestial heirs would go on to fill the role of Christ. However, if we move on to later remembrances and reports, we do have quotes from Brigham and others which infer that JS believed celestial heirs would fill the role of Adam. If JS did teach that, and given the quotes by Brigham and others I believe he likely did, I don't think he taught that the role of Adam came after Christ, as that has too many conflicts with other teaching in the Nauvoo period. Additionally, if JS did teach that the Saints would fill the role Adam, the order of the authority would most likely reflect the order of the roles to be filled. JS taught that the saints will move from one exaltation to the other, like climbing a ladder. Returning to "Christ is the great High priest, Adam next," there is additional important information earlier in that same sermon. JS taught, "The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of Man & organized them [I Abraham saw the intelligences which were organized before the world was] . He (Adam) is the head, was told to multiply. The Keys were given to him [Adam], and by him to others & he will have to give an account of his Stewardship." Here JS subjugates Adam to "the Father." Earlier in the same sermon, JS had already described the account of Adam's stewardship. "Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him & there is given him glory & dominion.--Adam delivers up his Stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the Keys of the Universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family." In other words, Adam retains some of his authority but delivers his larger stewardship up to Christ. This is consistent with the quote I've already given that "Adam acts under the direction of Christ," and implies that the phrase "Adam next" indicates that Adam is next in authority under Christ. Another important quote from July 9, 1843, "After God had created the Heavens and the Earth. He came down and on the sixth day said let us make man in our own image. In whose image. ln the image of Gods created they them. Male and female: innocent harmless and spotless bearing the same character and the same image as the Gods. And when man fell he did not lose his image but his character still retaining the image of his maker Christ who is the image of man is also the express image of his fathers person so says Paul. For in him Christ dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Why because He was the brightness of his glory; and the express image of his person. Ques. What person Gods person. Hebrews 1st chap 3 verse And through the atonement of Christ and the resurrection and obediance in the Gospel we shall again be conformed to the image of his Son Jesus Christ, then we shall have attained to the image glory and character of God." Here, Joseph taught that Christ was the maker of Adam. This is another vote for him as Jehovah in the Nauvoo endowment, which again places him in greater authority, or in a higher exaltation if you like, than Micheal/Adam. He also says that in Christ dwelt the "fulness of the Godhead bodily." In other words, Christ was the fullest embodiment of God on earth, and it seems like JS would have applied that description to Adam, not Christ, if he had believed that Adam was God the Father. All of that being said, I do think it's possible that JS taught that Adam was the Father of our spirits though still being under Christ (see my first post in this thread; it really is worth a read if you haven't yet), and if JS equated Adam with the Holy Ghost in some sense then it's conceivable that JS taught that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ's body in the immaculate conception sense (attributed in the scriptures to the Holy Ghost). This would be fairly similar to Brigham's version of Adam-God, just with a reverse order of roles. Essentially, I believe that JS may have attributed spiritual fatherhood of the human race to Adam, but maintained that Christ was an exaltation ahead of Adam, and that God the Father was of course above Christ. This would make God the Father the Father of Jesus Christ, the grandfather of Adam, and the great grandfather of the human family. Fun stuff. I don't think it's accurate to say that he taught the apostles because he knew he wouldn't be able to teach it in this life. In an earlier post I demonstrated that JS was teaching most or all of the King Follet sermon content, which is foundational to what we are talking about, as early as 1840. That would have been plenty of time to teach it openly multiple times, but instead he appears to have largely held it back. It's more likely that he taught these doctrines we are debating privately to his apostles and other of his inner circle who he felt were prepared to receive. This is a pattern he commonly follows, keeping the inner circle more up to date and only introducing things to the more public church later on, perhaps when he felt they were more receptive or otherwise prepared. Early church history, especially, JS' teachings, theology, and texts are a passion of mine, and where there is strong evidence, I will continue to make my case. I'll try not to so confrontationally!
  10. Understanding Adam-God

    You've missed a couple important trees. JS' later October 5th 1839 statement about Adam clarifies: "These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam who acts under the direction of Christ." Also, all the stuff I wrote to JHL just earlier today is relevant:
  11. Understanding Adam-God

    If you read my second post, you would also see that all of the KF content was already known to JS by 1841, just a year later. In fact, JS taught at least part of the KFD, that the “Father took life to himself precisely as Jesus did,” as early as January 5 of 1841, which is a mere 3 months after his last explicit statement on Adam’s authority coming after Christ. My point is that important KFD concepts are developing essentially at the same time, and it’s way more likely that this was all one developing thread and not a 180 degree reversal. In fact, in the KFD, Joseph teaches that “Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God.” This of course can also be used against some of my speculation, but at any rate, it clearly creates a level of separation between Adam and the Father and supports the idea that JS perceived Elohim and Jehovah in the endowment as Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ with Adam in a secondary authority to them. Though the identity of Jehovah is not made explicit in the endowment, all of JS teachings affirm that Jesus was primarily responsible for the creation (see BOM, D&C, JST John, Moses, and Abraham), and so it would appear that JS’ endowment Jehovah is Jesus.
  12. Understanding Adam-God

    I already did in my first post on the first page of this thread. They are in the section titled Joseph Smith and Adam-God. They date to 1839 and 1840.
  13. Understanding Adam-God

    Also, the juiciest portions of the King Follet Sermon can be found more explicitly recorded by Wilford Woodruff in a succinct summary in 1841! I also included that in my first post. JS’s theology was usually ahead of what he taught to the entire church, such as on the KF occasion.
  14. Understanding Adam-God

    His teachings about Adam are in the Nauvoo time period. The two most important quotes are linked to in my post on the first page. This is not an early on teaching.
  15. Understanding Adam-God

    The problem, which I would guess you’re well aware of, is that JS taught that Adam answered to and was under Jesus’ authority. Brigham’s Adam-God does not, and that is an indicator, along with contrasting teachings about the origin of spirits, that BY hadn’t understood what JS taught or gave it his own flavor.
×