One Council -- Two Events

[Nofear]

Moses 4:1-3 and Abraham 3:27-28 are often interpreted as the same event but Jonah Barnes argues that they are two different events, perhaps two action items for the same Grand Council.

Proposed interpretation:

First Agenda Item: Select a Redeemer. Lucifer volunteers. So does Jehovah. The latter is selected.
Second Agenda item: Select an Adam. Michael* volunteers. Lucifer volunteers. The former is selected.

Lucifer is passed over twice. The first time by his senior (Christ) and second time by his junior** (Michael). Lucifer gets really annoyed and consequently rebels and is cast down.

What think you?


PS: I also think there would have been a third agenda item, the selection of Eve. But that must have proceeded without any complication and so got less text time.

* name meaning who is like unto God
** as told by extra-biblical literature

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

PS: I also think there would have been a third agenda item, the selection of Eve. But that must have proceeded without any complication and so got less text time.

Adam brought the wife of his choice with him.

Journal of Discourses 1:52

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Moses 4:1-3 and Abraham 3:27-28 are often interpreted as the same event but Jonah Barnes argues that they are two different events, perhaps two action items for the same Grand Council.

Proposed interpretation:

First Agenda Item: Select a Redeemer. Lucifer volunteers. So does Jehovah. The latter is selected.
Second Agenda item: Select an Adam. Michael* volunteers. Lucifer volunteers. The former is selected.

Lucifer is passed over twice. The first time by his senior (Christ) and second time by his junior** (Michael). Lucifer gets really annoyed and consequently rebels and is cast down.

What think you?


PS: I also think there would have been a third agenda item, the selection of Eve. But that must have proceeded without any complication and so got less text time.

* name meaning who is like unto God
** as told by extra-biblical literature

What is the evidence in support of the second agenda item having happened?

[halconero]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What is the evidence in support of the second agenda item having happened?

In Abraham 3:24 there is a reference to one "like unto God":

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

The Hebrew name Michael, translated, means "who is like God" or "who is like God?". The proponents of this theory suggest that this character is the same as the one referenced a few verses later in 27–28:

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

For what it's worth, I don't think the logic holds. For one, this is a council setting; there is no evidence in the text itself that one character necessarily represents another character. Even more simply, the phrase "like unto the Son of Man" is distinct from "like unto God," and has no comparable name in Hebrew (it would be something like 'מִיכְבֶןאָדָם' (Mi-ke-ven-adam)). The premise of the argument is predicated on these two council members being the same person, which I don't think can be supported by the text alone.

Even if, however, we were to allow greater exegetical reasoning, I'm not convinced it would strengthen the argument, but weaken it: in Latter-day Saint doctrine, Michael is "Man/Adam," not the "Son of Man," a term which applies to both Jesus specifically, and humanity specifically (as Adam's mortal descendants).

[ZealouslyStriving]

13 minutes ago, halconero said:

In Abraham 3:24 there is a reference to one "like unto God":

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

The Hebrew name Michael, translated, means "who is like God" or "who is like God?". The proponents of this theory suggest that this character is the same as the one referenced a few verses later in 27–28:

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

For what it's worth, I don't think the logic holds. For one, this is a council setting; there is no evidence in the text itself that one character necessarily represents another character. Even more simply, the phrase "like unto the Son of Man" is distinct from "like unto God," and has no comparable name in Hebrew (it would be something like 'מִיכְבֶןאָדָם' (Mi-ke-ven-adam)). The premise of the argument is predicated on these two council members being the same person, which I don't think can be supported by the text alone.

Even if, however, we were to allow greater exegetical reasoning, I'm not convinced it would strengthen the argument, but weaken it: in Latter-day Saint doctrine, Michael is "Man/Adam," not the "Son of Man," a term which applies to both Jesus specifically, and humanity specifically (as Adam's mortal descendants).

I don't think you are understanding the argument.

[marineland]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Adam brought the wife of his choice with him.

Journal of Discourses 1:52

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When 
our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, 
and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this 
world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have 
written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have 
to do".

https://journalofdiscourses.com/1/8

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, halconero said:

In Abraham 3:24 there is a reference to one "like unto God":

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

The Hebrew name Michael, translated, means "who is like God" or "who is like God?". The proponents of this theory suggest that this character is the same as the one referenced a few verses later in 27–28:

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

For what it's worth, I don't think the logic holds. For one, this is a council setting; there is no evidence in the text itself that one character necessarily represents another character. Even more simply, the phrase "like unto the Son of Man" is distinct from "like unto God," and has no comparable name in Hebrew (it would be something like 'מִיכְבֶןאָדָם' (Mi-ke-ven-adam)). The premise of the argument is predicated on these two council members being the same person, which I don't think can be supported by the text alone.

Even if, however, we were to allow greater exegetical reasoning, I'm not convinced it would strengthen the argument, but weaken it: in Latter-day Saint doctrine, Michael is "Man/Adam," not the "Son of Man," a term which applies to both Jesus specifically, and humanity specifically (as Adam's mortal descendants).

Thanks for explaining that.  It's helpful.

[ZealouslyStriving]

32 minutes ago, marineland said:

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When 
our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, 
and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this 
world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have 
written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have 
to do".

https://journalofdiscourses.com/1/8

That one.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

That one.

Isn't that a discourse where Brigham is teaching his Adam-God theory?  Where Adam and God the Father are the same person?  

[ZealouslyStriving]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Isn't that a discourse where Brigham is teaching his Adam-God theory?  Where Adam and God the Father are the same person?  

Yeah. I meant it more as a tease. Should have put an "😉".

[bluebell]

Just now, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yeah. I meant it more as a tease. Should have put an "😉".

Ah, ok.  I thought you meant 'that one' as in 'that's the evidence for the second agenda item'.  But that didn't make sense to me since in the second agenda, God the Father and Adam are not the same person.

Thanks for clarifying!

[ZealouslyStriving]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ah, ok.  I thought you meant 'that one' as in 'that's the evidence for the second agenda item'.  But that didn't make sense to me since in the second agenda, God the Father and Adam are not the same person.

Thanks for clarifying!

For the third agenda.

I just verified that that was the quote I was teasingly referring to.

Edited November 7, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[halconero]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I don't think you are understanding the argument.

I'm genuinely open to having my understanding corrected. Could you help me understand how the second agenda item is supported by the text in Abraham 3:27-28?

Edited November 7, 2025 by halconero

[longview]

30 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yeah. I meant it more as a tease. Should have put an "😉".

Whew! You had me going. 😮‍💨

This JoD entry is very annoying to me. While I love BY, I do not appreciate this particular "wild" speculative theme that was also supported by Heber Kimball and some others. I remain fundamentally convinced of the simpler narrative of all the standard works and the events described in the Garden of Eden (keeping the overall Plan of Happiness in mind). The biggest point that I reject is for Heavenly Father to be subjected to multiple falls and repeated corruptions. Therefore, Adam cannot have been God the Father. Further, Adam did need the redemptive power of Jesus' Atonement BUT God the Father does NOT.

With regards to @Nofear's topic, I consider it possible that many agenda items were discussed in the Grand Council. And for the third agenda item to be about Michael's role in being the FIRST man on earth and bringing about the implementation of the Plan of Happiness. But I really don't think there is any additional scriptural evidence or documentation for this 3rd agenda. Just the first two items.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

biggest point that I reject is for Heavenly Father to be subjected to multiple falls and repeated corruptions.

Or anyone for me.  It’s a big issue and makes no sense to me.  How is this a benefit to God’s (or anyone else’s) development to have to deal with corruption and overcome it again and again without the benefit of awareness of past lives rather than just progress beyond it?  If it isn’t for his own benefit but the needs of others, seems like he is only only going through the motions of pretending he is tempted, etc.

I am firmly behind the one and done doctrine for mortality.

Edited November 7, 2025 by Calm

[Nofear]

53 minutes ago, halconero said:

I'm genuinely open to having my understanding corrected. Could you help me understand how the second agenda item is supported by the text in Abraham 3:27-28?

Note the sequence of Abraham 3:24-27.
1. One "like unto God" says we are going to go create an Earth and those that keep their first estate will have opportunity there. (v24-26)
2. The "Lord" ask who are we going to send? Send to do what is left implicit.
3. One who isn't the Son of Man but like unto the Son of Man volunteers.
 

 

2 hours ago, halconero said:

The premise of the argument is predicated on these two council members being the same person, which I don't think can be supported by the text alone.

The premise of the argument is that individuals referenced by Abraham, the one "like unto God" and the one "like unto the Son of Man" are not the same individual.

[teddyaware]

11 hours ago, Nofear said:

Moses 4:1-3 and Abraham 3:27-28 are often interpreted as the same event but Jonah Barnes argues that they are two different events, perhaps two action items for the same Grand Council.

Proposed interpretation:

First Agenda Item: Select a Redeemer. Lucifer volunteers. So does Jehovah. The latter is selected.
Second Agenda item: Select an Adam. Michael* volunteers. Lucifer volunteers. The former is selected.

Lucifer is passed over twice. The first time by his senior (Christ) and second time by his junior** (Michael). Lucifer gets really annoyed and consequently rebels and is cast down.

What think you?


PS: I also think there would have been a third agenda item, the selection of Eve. But that must have proceeded without any complication and so got less text time.

* name meaning who is like unto God
** as told by extra-biblical literature

While I do believe there are many heretofore unrevealed gospel mysteries that the spiritually unprepared would find hard to comprehend and swallow, I must say that Barnes’ proposition seems highly unlikely and even absurd. Why in the world would Lucifer be considered as a viable candidate to become Adam after his bogus plan of salvation rejected the absolute need for an atoning sacrifice for sin, which rejection amounted an act of ultimate defiance against God that would have destroyed the agency of man and put true salvation forever out of reach. From the moment Lucifer hardened his heart in total rebellion against the Father’s plan of salvation he became the first anti-Christ, therefore he was totally unworthy to be placed in consideration to hold any priesthood office. After Lucifer’s rebellion against the Father’s plan of salvation and his rejection of the Only Begotten of Son of God (Barnes’ First Agenda item) he was no longer worthy to even be considered for the position of first earthly dog catcher.

And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son. (Doctrine and Covenants 76)

 

Edited November 8, 2025 by teddyaware

[Calm]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Why in the world would Lucifer be considered as a viable candidate

Him volunteering is not him being considered by God as a candidate, just by himself.

[Nofear]

On 11/7/2025 at 7:28 PM, teddyaware said:

Why in the world would Lucifer be considered as a viable candidate to become Adam after his bogus plan of salvation rejected the absolute need for an atoning sacrifice for sin, which rejection amounted an act of ultimate defiance against God that would have destroyed the agency of man and put true salvation forever out of reach.

I don't see God as punishing us for putting forth ideas when we are asked to provide them. Coming to earth was a voluntary act. God didn't force anything on us. The Plan was presented and we were asked to consent. An alternative proposal was put forth. As wrong headed and filled with ulterior motives as Lucifer's plan was I don't think the act of actually presenting an alternate was wrong or what got Lucifer in trouble. The son of the morning was able to rally a significant minority (the "one third part, though I seriously doubt 33%, just less than 1/2 more than 1/4). Upset at his rejection, certainly. But no outright rebellion yet. Lucifer still could have gotten on board the soul train with the rest of us.

Lucifer then opts for plan B. Jesus, now selected as the number one head for this earth's experience needs to organize his own help. Organizing the earth and becoming the first man was apparently, in prominence, position 2*. Lucifer immediately volunteers and points to all his backers. Wisely unpersuaded, Jesus selects Michael (of lesser seniority). With that rejection Lucifer gets really torqued off and causes a ruckus and gets his posse to agree not to participate in this go around. While still holding their picket signs "No Lucifer--No Earth" and "Earth No! We won't go!" they were kicked out of the celestial courtyards.

The story then proceeds as I've advocated on this board before: Lucifer goes full sabotage mode, becomes Satan, and has his travel visa revoked.

 

* I agree that the Adam position was actually an Adam and Eve combo. That being the case, I wonder who was Lucifer's Eve running mate? Maybe the old traditions just got the whole Lilith story mixed up.

[CV75]

On 11/7/2025 at 9:13 AM, Nofear said:

Moses 4:1-3 and Abraham 3:27-28 are often interpreted as the same event but Jonah Barnes argues that they are two different events, perhaps two action items for the same Grand Council.

Proposed interpretation:

First Agenda Item: Select a Redeemer. Lucifer volunteers. So does Jehovah. The latter is selected.
Second Agenda item: Select an Adam. Michael* volunteers. Lucifer volunteers. The former is selected.

Lucifer is passed over twice. The first time by his senior (Christ) and second time by his junior** (Michael). Lucifer gets really annoyed and consequently rebels and is cast down.

What think you?


PS: I also think there would have been a third agenda item, the selection of Eve. But that must have proceeded without any complication and so got less text time.

* name meaning who is like unto God
** as told by extra-biblical literature

Where the name Michael means "who-like-God" it seems he is the character in Abraham 3:24, not verse 27.

Abraham 3:24 – 27

v. 24: “like unto God” (Michael) -- Michael may have been delegated to conduct the council session, or simply stood as one among them taking a turn to speak or speak in behalf of his caucus. In any case, this character is not preeminent among the G/gods, referring to someone else as the "Lord their God."

v. 25: the Lord their God / Lord (Father)

v. 27: Lord (Father); like unto the Son of Man (Jesus, using this title in the Book of Daniel sense, as a God ruling in the form of a man on earth, and consistent with our understanding of "Man [of Holiness]" being one of God's names).

Moses 4:1, presumably received in vision and recorded much later than Abraham renders the characters thusly: Lord God (Father); Only Begotten / Beloved Son / Beloved and Chosen (Jesus Christ). This would support Abraham 3:27 as referring to Jesus, not Adam or Michael and these two accounts referring to the same event.

Edited November 10, 2025 by CV75

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Where the name Michael means "who-like-God" it seems he is the character in Abraham 3:24, not verse 27.

Abraham 3:24 – 27

v. 24: “like unto God” (Michael) -- Michael may have been delegated to conduct the council session, or simply stood as one among them taking a turn to speak or speak in behalf of his caucus. In any case, this character is not preeminent among the G/gods, referring to someone else as the "Lord their God."

v. 25: the Lord their God / Lord (Father)

v. 27: Lord (Father); like unto the Son of Man (Jesus, using this title in the Book of Daniel sense, as a God ruling in the form of a man on earth, and consistent with our understanding of "Man [of Holiness]" being one of God's names).

Moses 4:1, presumably received in vision and recorded much later than Abraham renders the characters thusly: Lord God (Father); Only Begotten / Beloved Son / Beloved and Chosen (Jesus Christ). This would support Abraham 3:27 as referring to Jesus, not Adam or Michael and these two accounts referring to the same event.

I personally think the following framework is more enlightening, and theologically coherent:
Christ = Son of Man (of Holiness)
Michael is pretty darn awesome himself. Not as awesome as Christ, but, perhaps more like Christ than the rest of us. Thus, like the Son of Man. Or like God (since Christ is also like the Father).

But, I suppose one can go with your interpretation. After all, knowing who conducted the meeting or just said a few words here or there is probably pretty important too.

Here is my rephrasing of Abraham 3:24-27:

24: And Christ stood among the various rulers, the noble and great ones (vs 22 and 23). Let's go organize an earth for all of these (all of us in this particular cohort) to dwell on.
25: We will test our cohort to see if they will do all things whatsoever I, Christ, shall command them (now that I was selected to be their God and Redeemer).
26: Those that go shall advance. Those that don't go won't advance.
27: Christ continues to address this group of noble and great ones. We are going to need an Adam for this world (just like all the other worlds before us). Who shall it be? Michael, being one of the noble and great ones most like Christ, the Son of Man, volunteers. Lucifer, also being among the noble and great ones, volunteers. Christ picks Michael.
28: Lucifer gets really upset and boycotts this earth. Many follow Lucifer's tantrum.

Theologically I find it entirely coherent with LDS doctrine. Could it be otherwise? I suppose. But, I don't see much of a reason to adopt the more traditional/historical reading.

 

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Nofear said:

I personally think the following framework is more enlightening, and theologically coherent:
Christ = Son of Man (of Holiness)
Michael is pretty darn awesome himself. Not as awesome as Christ, but, perhaps more like Christ than the rest of us. Thus, like the Son of Man. Or like God (since Christ is also like the Father).

But, I suppose one can go with your interpretation. After all, knowing who conducted the meeting or just said a few words here or there is probably pretty important too.

Here is my rephrasing of Abraham 3:24-27:

24: And Christ stood among the various rulers, the noble and great ones (vs 22 and 23). Let's go organize an earth for all of these (all of us in this particular cohort) to dwell on.
25: We will test our cohort to see if they will do all things whatsoever I, Christ, shall command them (now that I was selected to be their God and Redeemer).
26: Those that go shall advance. Those that don't go won't advance.
27: Christ continues to address this group of noble and great ones. We are going to need an Adam for this world (just like all the other worlds before us). Who shall it be? Michael, being one of the noble and great ones most like Christ, the Son of Man, volunteers. Lucifer, also being among the noble and great ones, volunteers. Christ picks Michael.
28: Lucifer gets really upset and boycotts this earth. Many follow Lucifer's tantrum.

Theologically I find it entirely coherent with LDS doctrine. Could it be otherwise? I suppose. But, I don't see much of a reason to adopt the more traditional/historical reading.

 

I think many views, traditional and historical or not, are coherent with the broader doctrine and serve a purpose in leading us to Christ, keeping His covenants and understanding His ways.

What do you think of "like unto the Son of Man" referring to the spirit version of His yet-to-be-confirmed future, "sent" manifestation, "the Son of Man" in the flesh? Or of speaking in behalf of Jesus (could have been Michael, or one body of those sustaining Jesus' plan), and so "answered like unto the Son of Man"?

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

What do you think of "like unto the Son of Man" referring to the spirit version of His yet-to-be-confirmed future, "sent" manifestation, "the Son of Man" in the flesh? Or of speaking in behalf of Jesus (could have been Michael, or one body of those sustaining Jesus' plan), and so "answered like unto the Son of Man"?

Michael is like unto Christ, who is also titled the Son of Man (one of God's name is Man of Holiness, Moses 7:35). 

If you want to interpret it differently, that is ok by me. Not that my opinion on it being ok or not matters one whit.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Nofear said:

Michael is like unto Christ, who is also titled the Son of Man (one of God's name is Man of Holiness, Moses 7:35). 

If you want to interpret it differently, that is ok by me. Not that my opinion on it being ok or not matters one whit.

It is Ok by me too, and your opinion does matter since it contributes to an edifying conversation and offers insight into in leading us to Christ, keeping His covenants and understanding His ways. I see many the many interpretations as equally valid and useful.