Jehovah…

[CV75]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Ugh, I know I am going to hell but if Stanley is there it will be intolerable. Gotta make sure Stanley ends up anywhere else!

There was a really stupid Christian made a few years back called “Nefarious” that includes a demon that basically preaches the far-right evangelical gospel to try to get his manifesto published but it made no sense. The demon was really stupid. All the characters come across as stupid actually since they were too busy preaching to make anything make any sense.

You just convinced me to watch it!

I was reading Moroni 8 this morning and Mormon used the terms "an endless hell" and "an endless torment". This got me to recollecting the ancient Hebrew concept of time as as place where things happened versus when things happen, or for how long they happen. Time for them was sequential event-filled spaces, some in front, as in the space between them and the visible ahead (representing the past* which they could recall) and some behind, an unknown horizon beyond the present stop an the journey (representing the future). This sets the stage for the world being a place to travel or progress toward a divine fulfillment, with both remembering and anticipation as key elements. The cycle of time (as found in days, seasons, years and other periods) has an added dimension of themes and types, adding pre-existing (God's will) meaning and purpose.

I say all that because in Alma 36, Alma the younger was saved from the pains of hell, which he perceived within his experience to be "everlasting." But that was cut short as he remembered his father's prophecies of Christ and acted in faith. It also offers some context for the article @JVW shared earlier about God's name. Posted Wednesday at 10:58 AM (edited)

Now who in hell is Stanley?

* Two quick examples from the Book of Mormon; it seems the Nephites shared this concept of time. "And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to [remember] the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people. And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to [remember] his Son for redemption...  Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord." (Alma 13: 1, 2, 16). And: "And now let us be wise and look forward to [i.e., remember, see verse 18] these things..." (Mosiah 9:10)

Edited December 5, 2025 by CV75

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You just convinced me to watch it!

You should definitely not send me all your money. Definitely do not do that.

[JVW]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

One theory I had was that humanity was supposed to progress normally in a Terrestrial environment and then partake of the fruit when they were ready. The equivalent of the end of the Millenium when those born during it are tested. This time the plan failed or was ‘hacked’ deliberately as a rescue mission for fallen spirits (i.e. us). I don’t really hold to it anymore.

In this theory could Adam and Eve had had children before the fall? As far as I'm aware LDS believe that's not possible because of that one verse in 2 Nephi 2, but outside of that I don't know if we have a lot of support for that belief.

Also, how did you ever reconcile the tree of life probably having been partaken of before they ate the forbidden fruit? I appreciate the symbolism of the two trees, but when looking at it literally I have a difficult time making sense of things.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

In this theory could Adam and Eve had had children before the fall? As far as I'm aware LDS believe that's not possible because of that one verse in 2 Nephi 2, but outside of that I don't know if we have a lot of support for that belief.

Also, how did you ever reconcile the tree of life probably having been partaken of before they ate the forbidden fruit? I appreciate the symbolism of the two trees, but when looking at it literally I have a difficult time making sense of things.

Welll... If Adam is the Father of our Spirits and Eve was one of his celestial wives- perhaps their pre-Fall condition is where they had spirit children?

🤔😉

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

In this theory could Adam and Eve had had children before the fall? As far as I'm aware LDS believe that's not possible because of that one verse in 2 Nephi 2, but outside of that I don't know if we have a lot of support for that belief.

Also, how did you ever reconcile the tree of life probably having been partaken of before they ate the forbidden fruit? I appreciate the symbolism of the two trees, but when looking at it literally I have a difficult time making sense of things.

Yes, probably. That was the one verse that opposed it but I did question if Lehi would have actually known that by revelation or just guessed. It is not in the Bible. In fact the idea that they were immortal wasn’t in the Bible either.

[JVW]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, probably. That was the one verse that opposed it but I did question if Lehi would have actually known that by revelation or just guessed. It is not in the Bible. In fact the idea that they were immortal wasn’t in the Bible either.

Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve could have died if they never partook of the forbidden fruit? That's a really interesting idea that I've never considered before.

[JVW]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Welll... If Adam is the Father of our Spirits and Eve was one of his celestial wives- perhaps their pre-Fall condition is where they had spirit children?

🤔😉

I vote for you to be the next prophet. You've got some wildly progressive doctrinal ideas my dude.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, JVW said:

Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve could have died if they never partook of the forbidden fruit? That's a really interesting idea that I've never considered before.

I have no idea. I am just saying that in the Genesis story there is no indication that they are immune to aging or immortal. That seems like the kind of thing you mention if you think it is important.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have no idea. I am just saying that in the Genesis story there is no indication that they are immune to aging or immortal. That seems like the kind of thing you mention if you think it is important.

Adam was commanded to subdue the earth (1:28), a hint at some future opposition to the relative ease of keeping the garden (2:15). Adam was created in the earth and brought into Eden (2:8). He and Eve did not have anything to do with the earth outside the garden, eating only its fruits (2:16, 3:2), including that of the tree of life, implying to me that they were immortal within whatever gerontological phase range within which they could tend a garden or subdue an earth as long as they did not eat the forbidden fruit. The warning about death (2:17) in the day the forbidden fruit is eaten uses a Hebrew idiom, which emphasizes the certainty of the unhappy consequence of spiritual and physical death, a process immediately effected upon eating the forbidden fruit, rather than referring to expiration within a strict 24-hour period. Perhaps these details are not important in comparison to the covenants when the story is figurative for conveying the temple ordinances in the first place. For me, a "figurative immortality" represents the spiritual freedom and liberty we can enjoy in mortality that come from living the principles of eternal life. Some people believe in a literal story, and I think that's OK since the covenants and outcome are the same either way.

Edited December 6, 2025 by CV75

[Stargazer]

On 12/2/2025 at 6:06 AM, JLHPROF said:

This being the case what right do we have to claim what we teach on God is true?

In the Lectures on Faith they said the Holy Ghost wasn't a personage. That was official Church doctrine.  In Brigham's day Orson Pratt and Bishop Bunker both suffered disciplinary actions for teaching AGAINST Adam-God.  Christ wasn't officially identified as Jehovah in the Old Testament until Jesus The Christ was published (although there was speculation prior).  There have been many many changes in how we view the Godhead in the Church.

Yet if anyone questions the current teaching they are considered to believe "false doctrine".  Yet continuing revelation could prove our current teaching to be false doctrine.  It's mighty arrogant to assume current Church teachings are all completely true.

I agree. But picking and choosing which ones we prefer, as opposed to which ones are true, as if there was a cafeteria somewhere, could be mighty shortsighted. 

As for Adam-God, I don't know if you've ever watched the Ward Radio YouTube channel, but they were discussing this the other month. If you're not familiar with Ward Radio, I have to warn you that it tries be entertaining as well as thoughtful, so be prepared for some cringy presentation (at least in my opinion). Oh, and by the way, one of the presenters in this episode, Austin Falter, in his youth, was an old home-teaching companion of mine. Great kid.

 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

be prepared for some cringy presentation

Very cringy, feels like high school and not the AP classes.

Edited December 6, 2025 by Calm

[Stargazer]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Very cringy, feels like high school and not the AP classes.

You and I are probably not the target audience. I prefer talking heads, to be honest. Give me that straight stuff and I'm happy. 

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

Adam was commanded to subdue the earth (1:28), a hint at some future opposition to the relative ease of keeping the garden (2:15). Adam was created in the earth and brought into Eden (2:8). He and Eve did not have anything to do with the earth outside the garden, eating only its fruits (2:16, 3:2), including that of the tree of life, implying to me that they were immortal within whatever gerontological phase range within which they could tend a garden or subdue an earth as long as they did not eat the forbidden fruit. The warning about death (2:17) in the day the forbidden fruit is eaten uses a Hebrew idiom, which emphasizes the certainty of the unhappy consequence of spiritual and physical death, a process immediately effected upon eating the forbidden fruit, rather than referring to expiration within a strict 24-hour period. Perhaps these details are not important in comparison to the covenants when the story is figurative for conveying the temple ordinances in the first place. For me, a "figurative immortality" represents the spiritual freedom and liberty we can enjoy in mortality that come from living the principles of eternal life. Some people believe in a literal story, and I think that's OK since the covenants and outcome are the same either way.

Yeah, the fruit of the tree of life is usually believed to give immortality so it might be what was meant. I haven’t gone into a deep dive on that topic though to figure out if that was likely the meaning of the tree of life when it was written.

I am convinced though that based on context and the opinions of experts that ‘dying in the 24 hour day you eat the fruit’ is most likely was meant by the writer.

A lot of the Book of Genesis is pretty weird. One of the things I have been meaning to look into is why the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Seth use so many of the same names or nearly the same names in their genealogies. I wonder if they took one list and shuffled the names around to make the other.

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Very cringy, feels like high school and not the AP classes.

Yeah, also for a subject like this I want a more rigorous academic analysis of texts. And I have watched a few of their shows about things I know a little about and have rolled my eyes at how badly they twist or misrepresent the premises to reach the conclusion. I am not sure how common this is but I don’t trust them.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You and I are probably not the target audience. I prefer talking heads, to be honest. Give me that straight stuff and I'm happy. 

Same here, but very interesting stuff so far.  Better than the usual stuff I see them do on the few times I have watched except for the ooohs and ahhhhs over the claim we only adopted the belief that Brigham taught it because of not fighting back against the critics, I would like to see that documented.  People went apostate over the A-G belief whether it was Brigham’s original idea or someone who heard or read it (seems like reading might be more likely after what I saw of this video) and understood it the wrong way, so I am pretty sure it was known in the Church before the critics went after it.

I hope the scholars publish on this stuff, especially Ben Rich’s version if it hasn’t been already (I don’t know if it shows familiar because I hear it before or it was an alternative reading I have seen discussed before) and the “or” in the manuscript rather than the “our”….heard about Father Adam and Son Adam plenty and have seen alternative punctuation, though I don’t think the three in a quorum example before.

Haven’t made it all the way through as was listening as I made waffles….and forgot the melted butter.  Thankfully I add yogurt which makes them tasty even without the butter…and easier to digest for someone with a queasy stomach as was the case today.

I want someone who is an expert in Adam-God to evaluate it and make sure they have covered all possible sources for it.  My memory says the Lecture at the Veil contributed to the belief and I thought Brigham reviewed that after Nuttall wrote it down….okay, now that I actually wrote it out, got to go dig that up to support my comment when I was trying so hard to be lazy, lol, because I really don’t want to do research today.  Apparently it’s a compulsion though.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Brigham_Young_and_Adam-God_theory#Was_the_"Adam-God"_theory_ever_taught_as_part_of_the_temple_endowment_ceremony_as_something_called_"the_lecture_at_the_veil"?

Putting this here so I don’t have to dig it up when I finish listening.

Quote

 

“Shortly after the dedication of the lower portion of the temple, Young decided it was necessary to commit the endowment ceremony to written form. On 14 January 1877 he "requested Brigham jr & W Woodruff to write out the Ceremony of the Endowments from Beginning to End," assisted by John D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall. Daily drafts were submitted for Young's review and approval. The project took approximately two months to complete. On 21 March 1877 Woodruff recorded in his journal: "President Young has been laboring all winter to get up a perfect form of Endowments as far as possible. They having been perfected I read them to the Company today." ^[27]

The St. George endowment included a revised thirty-minute "lecture at the veil" first delivered by Young. This summarized important theological concepts taught in the endowment and contained references to Young's Adam-God doctrine. In 1892 L. John Nuttall, one of those who transcribed Young's lecture, recalled how it came about:

In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Young, in following up in the Endowments, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing.

Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elders J. D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing materials, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it [he] said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple.

A copy of the Lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which President Young refers to Adam in his creation and etc.

On 1 February 1877, when Young's lecture was first given, Woodruff wrote in his journal: "W Woodruff Presided and Officiated as El[ohim]. I dressed in pure white Doe skin from head to foot to officiate in the Priest Office, white pants vest & C[oat?] the first Example in any Temple of the Lord in this last dispensation. Sister Lucy B Young also dressed in white in officiating as Eve. Pr[e]sident [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts." The copy of the veil lecture which Nuttall describes is not presently available. But on 7 February Nuttall summarized in his diary additions to the lecture which Young made at his residence in Nuttall's presence:

In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus, made while in jerusalem, "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the ony true God and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." We were once acquainted with the Gods and lived with them, but we had the privilege of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. We did so and forgot all, and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned. We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc. Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child. It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve—This should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses' dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life—Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit; this was necessary that they might be together, that man might be. The woman was found in transgression not the man—Now in the law of Sacrifice we have the promise of a Savior and Man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks; this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood.... Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and came in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.)

Brigham Young died August 29, 1877, shortly after introducing this version of the veil lecture. The evidence is indeterminate as to whether the St. George lecture with its Adam-God teaching was included in all temples or that it continued to the turn of the twentieth century. Buerger writes:

It is not clear, in fact, what did become of the lecture. The apparent ignorance of the subject matter implied by Abraham Cannon's [1888] account—despite his having been a General Authority for six years—suggest it was not routinely presented in the temple. Similar ignorance among some missionaries [in 1897] and their president ... who also presumably had been through the temple prior to their missions supports this conclusion. Although exposes of the temple ceremonies published about this time do not include any reference to this lecture, "fundamentalist" authors have asserted without serious attempt at documentation that Brigham's lecture was an integral part of the temple ceremony until about 1902-1905. In support of this has been placed the testimony of one individual who in 1959 distinctly remembered hearing during his endowment in the temple in 1902 that "Adam was our God." On returning from his mission in 1904 he noted that these teachings had been removed. While one would expect more extensive evidence than this were it true that the lecture was regularly given for twenty-five years, it ... should also be recalled that other "discredited" notions were still being promulgated in some temples by a few individuals during the early years of the twentieth century—such as the continued legitimacy of plural marriage, also a cherished fundamentalist tradition. ^[28]

 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

One of the things I have been meaning to look into is why the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Seth use so many of the same names or nearly the same names in their genealogies. I wonder if they took one list and shuffled the names around to make the other.

It is obviously because they were just starting out and hadn’t gotten the process down pat yet, so they only had a limited number of names.

It has only been in the last few decades, 6028 years after it all started with Adam and the animals that here in Utah the ritual of naming has reached its highest form.

https://youtu.be/BfIehCrO4Zs?si=YdML8JjzfEOyIo7J

https://youtu.be/GXPrtJKPmB0?si=LBeJEXh_uDbVu9Tu

 

Edited December 6, 2025 by Calm

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Haven’t made it all the way through as was listening as I made waffles….and forgot the melted butter.

Forgot...butter? How could you! 😵

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, also for a subject like this I want a more rigorous academic analysis of texts. And I have watched a few of their shows about things I know a little about and have rolled my eyes at how badly they twist or misrepresent the premises to reach the conclusion. I am not sure how common this is but I don’t trust them.

There's a varied set of co-hosts, with Cardon Ellis being the only common personage. The channel is a mixed bag. As for trust, "prove all things," as Paul said. I've found some things presented on Ward Radio that has been of use to me. Like Calm said, seems sometimes more like a high school frat party than presentation of serious material. For more serious stuff I prefer Thoughtful Faith, which is mainly Jacob Hanson (he's also in many WR videos), and which is less sophomoric in presentation. Thoughtful Faith has a neat package of material intended for missionaries, consisting of "curated content specific for missionaries (or prospective missionaries) to help them better answer questions, resolve concerns and achieve their goal to invite others to come unto Christ." It's available at:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JrYitXbD42qfg1ROuIHzH2rUo8bJX3B1?usp=drive_link

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Forgot...butter? How could you! 😵

My grandmother is probably rolling over in her grave.

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And I have watched a few of their shows about things I know a little about and have rolled my eyes at how badly they twist or misrepresent the premises to reach the conclusion. I am not sure how common this is but I don’t trust them.

Same here, just too eager to see things fit in their current world view (like the automatic assumption the Church issued a correction because they were worried about critics rather than members going off the rails when to me it seems much more common that members are driving such things).

[Calm]

First off, the guy’s disdain of scholars is a massive red flag.  LDS scholars are biased against finding a more palatable version? As if they (in general) haven’t been trying for as long as I remember.  Second, why is he using the word “corrupted” for what are apparently publishing mistakes, misreading “or” as “our”, accidentally choosing the wrong punctuation?  He certainly likes his drama, but it makes me more concerned about his precision.

He’s blaming missionaries using the JoD as an authority for the idea?

I think he’s right there are 5 (maybe even more) parts to or versions as he calls them to the A-G theory.  His list is 1) Adam and Eve were resurrected beings, 2) Adam was father of Jesus, 3) one eternal round (everyone will get their opportunity to be Adam and Eve)…4 and 5?  I assume Adam/Michael is God the Father, Jesus prays to Adam…he confirms this, but never says what he sees as 5.  Any guesses?

Edited December 7, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Very cringy, feels like high school and not the AP classes.

Once you get past Cardon and his ranting it's a great show.

[Calm]

Did anyone else understand the guest to claim that Brigham frequently used not only “Father Adam” (which I think is likely) and “Son Adam” (meaning who we typically think,of as Adam)?
 

If so, did they post a quote or a list of quotes because I don’t remember Brigham ever using “Son Adam”, though I haven’t studied him closely so could be very wrong.

Lazy today and appealed to Chat, which says “Son Adam” was not from Brigham, but fundamentalist groups.

Also its timing on the “Adam is a title” apologetic, which I see as pretty well demonstrated generally speaking, whether or not it explains Brigham’s usage (I think it does in many cases, need to refresh my memory and compare documentation to their claims before going most or all):

Quote

 

Elden Watson (1960s–70s)

An LDS apologist who tried to harmonize Brigham with current doctrine.

He suggested “Adam” might sometimes refer to a role or title for:

• the father of the spirits
• the father of the human race

This is one of the earliest real LDS apologetic uses.

• Eldon Tanner / Joseph Fielding Smith era (1950s–60s)

Not directly using the title theory, but their hard stance against Adam–God motivated apologetic reinterpretations among LDS members who still wanted to defend Brigham.

• Hugh Nibley (1950s–1970s)

Nibley did NOT teach the title theory explicitly, but:

• he emphasized symbolic/ritual roles
• he pointed out that “Adam” in Hebrew means “man” or “humanity”
• his work paved the way for a non-literal reading of Brigham’s wording

 

Eldon Watson was the past expert on Adam-God.  Anyone know anyone besides this guest whose name I didn’t register who is digging deep into it now?

Edited December 7, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Once you get past Cardon and his ranting it's a great show.

Not for me.  They are all too cranked up.

And they come across to me as it’s not the understanding of new truth that is most important to them (though it is conveyed as very important by their dropped jaws and gosh gollies variations), but being able to be in your face “you are wrong, you lying sob critic!!!”

I love the info and I want to hear and see more, but in a thorough step by step fashion that identifies all the controversial parts, traces provenance (who said what when) and compares the possibly corrected versions to what Brigham said around the same time or later to demonstrate it was consistent to him.

The guest throwing out 1940s before Adam-God took hold, blaming it on missionaries spending their time scouring the JoD and then mission presidents and then dumping the alleged (that’s from me, not them) acceptance of Brigham teaching it on middle management while prophets and apostles not only instantly denied it, but didn’t even buy that it was from Brigham (use of a cautious “allegedly”)…it’s too conspiracy theory vibe for me, ignores a lot of the scholarly discussion over the decades, imo.

Orson Pratt was disciplined for something.  What did he reject that got him in trouble with Brigham?  There was no mention of that episode either.  In fact, iirc, they claimed there was no controversy or push back while Brigham was saying these things, which is bunk as far as I know.

Again…driven to check myself…

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-orson-pratt-brigham-young-controversies-conflict-within-the-quorums-1853-to-1868/

Quote

He warned Pratt that his interpretation of the omniscience of God “was a fals doctrin & not true that thare never will be a time to all Eternity when all the God[s] of Eternity will seace advancing in power knowledge experience & Glory for if this was the case Eternity would seace to be & the glory of God would come to an End but all of celestial beings will continue to advance in knowledge & power worlds without end.” The President also took issue with Pratt’s acceptance of Adam’s having been created out of the dust of this earth. Young maintained that Adam “came from another world & brought Eve with him partook of the fruits of the Earth begat children & they ware Earthly & had mortal bodies & if we are faithful we should become Gods as [Adam] was.” Apostle Wilford Woodruff recorded that the President “told Brother Pratt to lay aside his Philosofical reasoning & get revelation from God to govern & Enlighten his mind more . . . [he] said his [Pratt’s] Phylosophy injured him in a measure. . . .”[19]

Pratt was not the only member unwilling to embrace certain of Young’s views. Yet his calling as Apostle placed him at the forefront of dissent. Follow ing a strong Adam-God statement delivered by Young during the October 1854 general conference, one member observed, “[T]here were some that did not believe the sayings of the Prophet Brigham. Even our beloved Brother Orson Pratt told me that he did not believe it. He said he could prove by the scriptures it was not correct. I felt sorry to hear Professor Orson Pratt say that. I fear lest he should apostatize.”[20] The day after these observations, Pratt addressed the faithful in the Old Tabernacle. Vaguely alluding to present difficulties, he cautioned those members gathered for the semi-annual conference: 

So far nothing where Adam is Elohim.  Couldn’t finish it, if anyone can point to specific censure for, would be helpful.

Edited December 7, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not for me.  They are all too cranked up.

And they come across to me as it’s not the understanding of new truth that is most important to them (though it is conveyed as very important by their dropped jaws and gosh gollies variations), but being able to be in your face “you are wrong, you lying sob critic!!!”

I love the info and I want to hear and see more, but in a thorough step by step fashion that identifies all the controversial parts, traces provenance (who said what when) and compares the possibly corrected versions to what Brigham said around the same time or later to demonstrate it was consistent to him.

The guest throwing out 1940s before Adam-God took hold, blaming it on missionaries spending their time scouring the JoD and then mission presidents and then dumping the alleged (that’s from me, not them) acceptance of Brigham teaching it on middle management while prophets and apostles not only instantly denied it, but didn’t even buy that it was from Brigham (use of a cautious “allegedly”)…it’s too conspiracy theory vibe for me, ignores a lot of the scholarly discussion over the decades, imo.

Orson Pratt was disciplined for something.  What did he reject that got him in trouble with Brigham?  There was no mention of that episode either.

I just meant the show in general, not necessarily this episode- which I haven't watched.