Michael Is Part Of The Trinity

[CMZ]

...

[consiglieri]

I must admit I am surprised to learn that others out there have arrived at the same tentative conclusion that I have. This isn't a topic that comes up in church, nor is ever speculated about by missionaries. And to think, the great Consiglieri and I arrived independently at the same conclusion!! I don't know if that makes me look good or makes him look bad.

Sargon

Hah!

Great minds think alike, I suppose.

But then there's the corrolary to that statement that nobody ever mentions about feeble minds.

I will say that it is my impression that the idea that Adam is the Holy Ghost, like Poe's purloined letter, hides in plain view in LDS doctrine.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[kamenraider]

Brother Hyde was upon this same theory once, and in conversation with brother Joseph Smith advanced the idea that eternity or boundless space was filled with the Spirit of God, or the Holy Ghost. After portraying his views upon that theory very carefully and minutely, he asked brother Joseph what he thought of it? He replied that it appeared very beautiful, and that he did not know of but one serious objection to it. Says brother Hyde, "What is that?" Joseph replied, "it is not true."

--Brigham Young, JD 4:266

Wed. Jan 11 1899

Pres. Richards explained the nature of the Holy Ghost. Said the Holy Ghost presides over all righteous spirits, and that when the Holy Ghost is conferred upon a man, in his opinion, it is a righteous spirit, or in other words, a Holy Ghost under the direction of the Holy Ghost.

--Rudger Clawson Journal, A Ministry of Meetings, ed. Stan Larson, SLC: Signature Books 1993, pg. 21.

[MormonMason]

Yeah, that JD quote was brought up by somebody. I was going to bring it up myself until I saw that somebody else had.

The problem with this passage is that punctuation was not part of the original shorthand notation of the passage. There are other ways in which this section of the Journal of Discourses can be punctuated that can change the sense of the passage there on that page. This particular set of pages will always lack some degree of solidity of interpretation for me, therefore. As an aside, however, even as the text stands I never came up with the interpretation that Michael is the Holy Ghost. Add to this the phrase that Wilford Woodruff stated about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being the same yesterday, today, and forever, and I cannot myself adhere to such an interpretation, especially in light of the fluidity of the meaning of the passage from the Journal of Discourses.

[Sargon]

While Mr. Otto Betz may associate Michael with the Holy Ghost, it is highly unlikely that he associates Michael with Adam. To my knowledge (which isn't saying much) Adam=Michael is a unique LDS teaching.

Sargon

[MormonMason]

While Mr. Otto Betz may associate Michael with the Holy Ghost, it is highly unlikely that he associates Michael with Adam. To my knowledge (which isn't saying much) Adam=Michael is a unique LDS teaching.

Sargon

That would seem the most likely scenario based upon what I am seeing, but even there I am not so sure that there is so much an association rather than a blending of ideas. But, as I said, I have need to see the original. As soon I am able to do that I will be able to say one way of the other with certainty as to what Betz was saying. I already know that the Dead Sea Scrolls sources seem to have been misused by the author who cited Betz.

[consiglieri]

That would seem the most likely scenario based upon what I am seeing, but even there I am not so sure that there is so much an association rather than a blending of ideas. But, as I said, I have need to see the original. As soon I am able to do that I will be able to say one way of the other with certainty as to what Betz was saying. I already know that the Dead Sea Scrolls sources seem to have been misused by the author who cited Betz.

And just to be up front, I went back and looked at the article from which Betz was quoted and the author actually ends up disagreeing with Betz' conclusion about Michael and the Holy Ghost.

But at least he was honest enough to set forth Betz' own opinion before disagreeing with it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[kamenraider]

The problem with this passage is that punctuation was not part of the original shorthand notation of the passage.

Can you provide a reference for this statement, please?

There are other ways in which this section of the Journal of Discourses can be punctuated that can change the sense of the passage there on that page. This particular set of pages will always lack some degree of solidity of interpretation for me, therefore. As an aside, however, even as the text stands I never came up with the interpretation that Michael is the Holy Ghost.

O.k. then, show us -- repunctuate that sentence so that the meaning is different and makes more sense, then post the result so we can see if we agree with you.

Add to this the phrase that Wilford Woodruff stated about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being the same yesterday, today, and forever, and I cannot myself adhere to such an interpretation, especially in light of the fluidity of the meaning of the passage from the Journal of Discourses.

To me that totally contradicts this statement (unless Wilford was only talking about the responsibilities of the office of Holy Ghost being the same):

The Holy Ghost is now in a state of probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has.

--Joseph Smith, Sabbath address, Nauvoo, 27 August 1843. Reported by Franklin D. Richards (see The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 245).

[MormonMason]

Can you provide a reference for this statement, please?

I've been looking for my photo of the shorthand manuscript for those pages in the Journal of Discourses. After a few hours I have been unable to locate it. I know it is around here somewhere and may still be in the boxes that I have not yet unpacked since my recent move.

O.k. then, show us -- repunctuate that sentence so that the meaning is different and makes more sense, then post the result so we can see if we agree with you.

Why? Everyone can repunctuate it however they want. What would that prove? Even with it punctuated as it stands in the printed text, it does not clearly teach that Michael is the Holy Ghost, especially with the context of the other page which identifies Michael as "our Father and our God" as it now is punctuated in the printed Journal of Discourses. If Michael is "our Father and our God" how is he also the Holy Ghost? No one who has misused this portion of the text to enunciate this Michael/Holy Ghost hypothesis has ever yet come to grips with this--at least not so far in my sight.

To me that totally contradicts this statement (unless Wilford was only talking about the responsibilities of the office of Holy Ghost being the same):..

Your quote from the Words of Joseph Smith may not necessarily be saying what you think it does. Notice the phrase "pass through" in those words? Notice also that the passage does not contain the words "mortal probation" there.

No, he was not talking of offices or the responsibilities of an office. He flatly stated that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are the same yesterday, today, and forever. Here is the relevant portion again, in context:

God is God. Christ is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be enough for you and me to know. If we want to know any more, wait till we get where God is in person. I say this because we are troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this. Humble yourselves before the Lord; seek for light, for truth, and for a knowledge of the common things of the kingdom of God. The Lord is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. He changes not. The Son of God is the same. He is the Savior of the world. He is our advocate with the Father. We have had letter after letter from Elders abroad wanting to know concerning these things. Adam is the first man. He was placed in the Garden of Eden, and is our great progenitor. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are the same yesterday, to-day and forever. That should be sufficient for us to know.

(Wilford Woodruff in Brian H. Stuy, ed., Collected Discourses, 5 vols., 4:292, bold emphasis mine)

[consiglieri]

No, he was not talking of offices or the responsibilities of an office. He flatly stated that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are the same yesterday, today, and forever. Here is the relevant portion again, in context:

I think the historical context of Wilford Woodruff's trying to put down and stamp out the perpetuation of Brigham Young's teachings, which was causing quite a stir and no little dissension among the saints, should be taken into account.

Please note for the record that I do not try to use the JD 1:51 source to demonstrate that Michael is the Holy Ghost.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[kamenraider]

I've been looking for my photo of the shorthand manuscript for those pages in the Journal of Discourses. After a few hours I have been unable to locate it. I know it is around here somewhere and may still be in the boxes that I have not yet unpacked since my recent move.

No need for that. Just cite something that refers to there being no punctuation in the Journal of Discourses shorthand manuscripts.

Why? Everyone can repunctuate it however they want. What would that prove?

If you could do so, it would prove that you could make better sense out of it, and thereby derive a different and more clear meaning from it.

Even with it punctuated as it stands in the printed text, it does not clearly teach that Michael is the Holy Ghost, especially with the context of the other page which identifies Michael as "our Father and our God" as it now is punctuated in the printed Journal of Discourses. If Michael is "our Father and our God" how is he also the Holy Ghost? No one who has misused this portion of the text to enunciate this Michael/Holy Ghost hypothesis has ever yet come to grips with this--at least not so far in my sight.

If Brigham meant that Michael, in the creation, was acting in a capacity in that presidency at least analogous to Holy Ghost, and later filled the Father position in our godhead presidency, then that would seem consistent to me.

Your quote from the Words of Joseph Smith may not necessarily be saying what you think it does. Notice the phrase "pass through" in those words? Notice also that the passage does not contain the words "mortal probation" there.

No, he was not talking of offices or the responsibilities of an office. He flatly stated that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are the same yesterday, today, and forever. Here is the relevant portion again, in context:

How about this quote:

But the holy ghost is yet a spiritual body and waiting to take himself a body. as the Savior did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies...

--Joseph Smith, 16 June 1844, in WJS pg. 382 (recorded by George Laub)

Also, if Father, Son and Holy Ghost are eternally the same, how would these scriptures make sense:

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

************************************

Hi everyone -- here's some more quotes about the possible identity of the person that is the Holy Ghost:

Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages, according to Abraham's record, are called: God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator.

--Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 190

I shall read the 24th chapter of Matthew, and give it a literal rendering and reading; and when it is rightly understood, it will be edifying.

I thought the very oddity of its rendering would be edifying anyhow--"And it will be preached, the Gospel of the kingdom, in the whole world, to a witness over all people: and then will the end come." I will now read it in German [which he did, and many Germans who were present said he translated it correctly].

The Savior said when these tribulations should take place, it should be committed to a man who should be a witness over the whole world: the keys of knowledge, power and revelations should be revealed to a witness who should hold the testimony to the world. It has always been my province to dig up hidden mysteries--new things--for my hearers. Just at the time when some men think that I have no right to the keys of the Priesthood--just at that time I have the greater right. The Germans are an exalted people. The old German translators are the most nearly correct--most honest of any of the translators; and therefore I get testimony to bear me out in the revelations that I have preached for the last fourteen years. The old German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew translations all say it is true: they cannot be impeached, and therefore I am in good company.

All the testimony is that the Lord in the last days would commit the keys of the Priesthood to a witness over all people.

Has the Gospel of the kingdom commenced in the last days? And will God take it from the man until He takes him Himself? I have read it precisely as the words flowed from the lips of Jesus Christ. John the Revelator saw an angel flying through the midst of heaven, having the everlasting Gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth.

The scripture is ready to be fulfilled when great wars, famines, pestilence, great distress, judgments, &c., are ready to be poured out on the inhabitants of the earth. John saw the angel having the holy Priesthood, who should preach the everlasting Gospel to all nations. God had an angel--a special messenger--ordained and prepared for that purpose in the last days. Woe, woe be to that man or set of men who lift up their hands against God and His witness in these last days: for they shall deceive almost the very chosen ones!

--Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pgs. 364 - 365

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is a "testator," meaning he "provided to mankind a witness of Godâ??s covenants." When Joseph Smith died, his death "place[d] a seal of truth on the testament" (Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, 350).

--from JosephSmith.com

[MormonMason]

No need for that. Just cite something that refers to there being no punctuation in the Journal of Discourses shorthand manuscripts.

And what would you have me cite? I have a photo of the manuscript portion that now is Journal of Discourses 1:50-52. Is not a picture worth a thousand words? I do not know of anything in writing that I can now find at this moment.

If you could do so, it would prove that you could make better sense out of it, and thereby derive a different and more clear meaning from it.

Once again, what would that prove? It would not prove what you claim for it and you full well know it. If I took the time to do it, all you would have to do is with a wave of your hand dismiss it if you do not like what you see. Wait until I find the picture. I would much more rather modify the passages when I get a look at the original again. If you do not like it, too bad. I would rather be careful with my texts and their interpretation than place myself in a position to falsely interpret passages--unlike some people around these parts.

If Brigham meant that Michael, in the creation, was acting in a capacity in that presidency at least analogous to Holy Ghost, and later filled the Father position in our godhead presidency, then that would seem consistent to me.

And this stinks of the sort of position shuffling not substantiated by the texts as a whole. There is no consistency with your view here with position shuffling. And, why did not Brigham Young not mention position shuffling here, if pertinent to the text and sermon? Worse, Michael did not fill an analogous capacity to the Holy Spirit. He co-created with Jehovah, the premortal Jesus Christ. He did not fill the position of a testator at that place and time.

How about this quote:

But the holy ghost is yet a spiritual body and waiting to take himself a body. as the Savior did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies...

--Joseph Smith, 16 June 1844, in WJS pg. 382 (recorded by George Laub)

And this proves...? All it does is match in meaning with the passage quoted before. It does nothing to identify the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, it does not allow for Michael to have been the Holy Ghost, for the Holy Ghost awaits a body. It could not be Joseph Smith, either. He had a body at the moment he spoke what he did. Interestingly enough, the only people who hold the idea of multiple transitional godhead offices are the fundamentalist cults who have no basis for authority for their ideas except themselves. Let's start seeing some clear, legitimate quotations from recognized General Authorities that teach the concept of multiple godhead offices and such nonsense. Let's see it from the scriptures as well, please.

Also, if Father, Son and Holy Ghost are eternally the same, how would these scriptures make sense:...

They make perfect sense when the context of the timeline is taken into consideration. It has reference to the timeline from the Grand Council to the future. The Son does what the Father does. That does not change anything. It has reference to the redemption of mankind and the deeds associated with that. Even Joseph Smith so interpreted the passages. Jesus' plea for glorification had to take place because Jesus emptied himself of his glory according to the scriptures and had, as a man, to grow in grace and be glorified again. Remember, he asked to be glorified with the glory which he had with the Father before the world was. This is taught so thoroughly and completely by the scriptures as a whole that I am surprised that you do not recognize it. Perhaps you should stop playing with apostates and reacquaint yourself with the scriptures again.

Hi everyone -- here's some more quotes about the possible identity of the person that is the Holy Ghost:

... --Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 190

... --Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pgs. 364 - 365

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is a "testator," meaning he "provided to mankind a witness of Godâ??s covenants." When Joseph Smith died, his death "place[d] a seal of truth on the testament" (Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, 350).

--from JosephSmith.com

These above passages you cited have nothing to do with identifying the Holy Ghost. A testator is a witness, and the Holy Ghost testifies of the Father and the Son, as the scriptures state. Anyone who testifies and sheds his blood for his witness also is a testator. Jesus also was a testator--or, did you miss that scripture, too?

Here is the fuller quote from the Doctrine and Covenants student manual:

A testator is one who leaves a will or testament. The will is valid only after the testator's death. While the testator lives, the will has no legal power. In the gospel context a testator is someone who provides to mankind a witness of God's covenants. The Prophet Joseph Smith's testament was that God had revealed through him the sealing power by which "all covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations," shall be in force and recognized as valid in the eternal worlds (D&C 132:7). The death of the testator places a seal of truth on the testament.

The Lord revealed to President Brigham Young that it was necessary for the Prophet to seal his testimony with his blood (see D&C 136:39). Elder Joseph Fielding Smith taught: "The shedding of their blood also bound that testimony upon an unbelieving world and this testimony will stand at the judgment seat as a witness against all men who have rejected their words of eternal life" ("The Martyrs," Improvement Era, June 1944, p. 365).

Nope. No identification of the Holy Ghost there either.

[CMZ]

...

[MormonMason]

I just went through my collection of quotes connecting Adam and the Holy Ghost and found there's some stuff there that's about as plain as day. Quotes by Mark E. Petersen, Talmage, McConkie, J. Reuben Clark, etc.

Let's see 'em in context, then. Mark E. Peterson is about as far from claiming that Adam is the Holy Ghost as anyone ever was. Same goes for McConkie and Clark. Talmage was responsible for the text of the official document of the First Presidency and Twelve enunciating the Church's current position. These talks in context should be interestig, then.

[CMZ]

...

[MormonMason]

Can't remember if this was posted yet or not:

That is part of the same lecture that states that there are two members of the godhead. This does not identify Michael as the Holy Spirit. This lecture also was removed from the scriptures long ago by action of the General Authorities of the Church because of the conflicts of Sidney Rigdon's view with what Joseph Smith revealed.

[CMZ]

...

[MormonMason]

Okay, but McConkie who you said is against the Adam/Holy Ghost connection said that the Lectures on Faith are "eternal scripture." Maybe he meant, "Except that one part."

And I should add that the LoF does state that there are two members in the godhead but also states that there are three members in the godhead. At the spot where it mentions two it doesn't rule out the third.

Whatever that means. Trouble is, doctrine is not defined by the teachings of one General Authority. Brigham Young and the Doctrine and Covenants together teach that when the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are unanimous in their declaration on any doctrinal principle, we may set it down as true. These also both teach that doctrines of the Church are set the same way. I see nothing showing that the entire quorums of the Twelve and First Presidency are united with Bruce R. McConkie in this view. Were it so, the Lectures on Faith still would have been part of the Doctrine and Covenants, now wouldn't they?

Don't get me wrong, I do believe them useful but I also know that there are problems with some portions of them, which must be clarified and superceded by current revelation and doctrine.

It is true that there are parts that say that there are two personages in the Godhead and others that say three. One says that the Holy Spirit is the mind shared between the two personages and another says that there are three. This alone substantiates the contradictory nature of the lectures. It is simply farcical to say that Joseph Smith was the author of these lectures in their entirety and that they were revelations to the Church. They were not and are not revelations, and partly because of this they were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants. A number of studies identify the author of most of the text of them as Sidney Rigdon, not Joseph Smith.

[CMZ]

...

[ed2276]

I am honestly quite stunned by some of the things which I have learned are believed by LDS here. While I have always known that there is a great variety of differing beliefs held by LDS (contrary to the criticisms of some of our critics that we LDS march in brainwashed lock-step) I find some of the beliefs expressed here to be most troubling. If there is any subject which we as LDS ought to be united on , next to the fundamental truth of Jesus as our Lord , Saviour and Redeemer , it ought to be on who God is and the nature and organization of His Kingdom.

I have always been taught , and have always believed , that the Godhead consists of God the Father (Eloah , the most high) His Son Jehova (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost ( an , as yet , unidentified individual) who , unlike the Father and Son , does not have a body of flesh and bone , but remains a spirit. To learn that there are those who believe Michael is a member of the Godhead , that perhaps he is the Holy Ghost or even the father of our bodies and SPIRITS , is not only shocking to me , but troubling as well.

I think it has been well-answered that Michael could not be the Holy Ghost , as the Holy Ghost rested on him when he was on the earth. Michael was certainly a part of the council of gods and participated in the creation of the earth , but he has never been , to my knowledge , described by the Lord as anything more than an archangel and prince ; certainly these designations do not suggest that he is the Holy Ghost nor do they arise to the level of one who would be the father of our bodies and spirits. I think that these conceptions of Michael have been fairly well disposed of by others in the thread.

I have no trouble believing that Michael is a god. D&C 132 : 29 , 37 make it clear that Abraham , Isaac and Jacob have entered into their exaltations , sit upon thrones and are gods. I know of no reason why the same could not be true of Michael / Adam. But , just as neither Abraham , Isaac or Jacob are members of the Godhead nor the fathers of our spirits , though they

most probably are members of the divine council of the gods , I cannot find it believable that Michael is a member of the Godhead , whether it be as the Holy Ghost or the father of our spirits.

[CMZ]

...

[MormonMason]

Yes, it may be true that when McConkie made his statements that the FP and the 12 didn't collectively say, "Right on!" but that hardly ever happens when an apostle writes a book or gives a talk somewhere.

That is true. But, I am more interested in what the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have to say on the matter unanimously. The Lectures on Faith do not have the status of scripture in the Church and until they collectively state that such is the case and that they should be put back into the Doctrine and Covenants, I cannot use them as a rule to define doctrine. Furthermore, they would have to be emended to agree completely with the doctrines revealed by Joseph Smith before they could be put back. Once that was done they would not be as useful to those with an apostate agenda who would use them for their purposes.

[CMZ]

...

[MormonMason]

Yes, it may be true that when McConkie made his statements that the FP and the 12 didn't collectively say, "Right on!" but that hardly ever happens when an apostle writes a book or gives a talk somewhere. The point that you missed is that McConkie wholeheartedly supported the Lectures and must've known about the part where it says the Holy Ghost was involved in the creation, yet you said McConkie was against that idea.

Involved in the creation, yes. As Michael, no. See Genesis 1:2, etc. And, Michael did not serve in a capacity of a testator or witness. He actively took part in the creation with Jehovah, the premortal Jesus Christ. The Lectures on Faith do not support your view even remotely.

Here's my full statement:

I'm not sure what apostate agenda you are referring to. I have simply pointed out statements in the Lectures on Faith.

These statements from the Lectures do not identify the Holy Ghost nor do they say anything relative to Michael being such in the creation.

Have you even read what that verse says?

I have. The premortal Jesus Christ baptized Adam while the Holy Ghost fell upon him. There is nothing to uphold your view there. Speaking as one of the other personages of the Godhead does not equal switching offices.

[CMZ]

...