Michael Is Part Of The Trinity

[ed2276]

Have you even read what that verse says?

Do you mean this verse?

(Moses 5:9) "And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will."

[MormonMason]

Then I can't point out the statements by President Clark and others....

Sure you can. Just make sure the context is there. I can tell you that none of the people you listed above will supoort any sort of a view that Michael is or was the Holy Ghost. To claim such is to take them out of context. But, go ahead and post away. It should be interesting.

[CMZ]

...

[MormonMason]

So, you are saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost created the earth and that Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael created the earth and that the Father is Elohim and the Son is Jehovah but the Holy Ghost is not Michael? That is fine with me. All I am doing is pointing out quotes. You can infer or nor infer what you want from them. I can point out more stuff to people who are up in arms about the whole thing and it wouldn't do a lick of good.

I never said that the Holy Ghost jointly created the earth. I said that the Holy Ghost was there but was not actively creating anything. I said to see Genesis 1:2, which is pretty clear that the Spirit of God was there. The Holy Ghost is not Michael and Michael was not the Holy Ghost. Michael, in contrast, was actively participating with Jehovah in creating the earth.

Go ahead and post away. No one is stopping you. But, you must be aware that I plan to be ready to expose any out-of-context remarks for what they are. I know what these Brethren have taught on the subject. Mark E. Peterson especially would object to being cited as believing or teaching that Michael was the Holy Ghost. I have yet to see a valid quotation from the others you listed above as holding such a thing as well. But, as I said, post away. No one is stopping you.

[CMZ]

...

[kamenraider]

So, you are saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost created the earth and that Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael created the earth and that the Father is Elohim and the Son is Jehovah but the Holy Ghost is not Michael?

[CMZ]

...

[MormonMason]

Unfortunately for your little smiley, CMZ misread what I wrote. I noted that the Holy Spirit was present at the creation but not actively creating as were Jehovah and Michael. Therefore, Michael is not the Holy Ghost.

[kamenraider]

We believe that in obedience to the Plan, Christ created the world and all that in it is, first spiritually, then temporally, and that in this work of creation he acted as one of the Great Trinity of three distinct personages, the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

--J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, April 1936, p.47

[MormonMason]

...You could've had this whole discussion with me last Sunday in the Conference Center between the hours of 1:30 and 4:30pm Mountain Daylight Time.

Synthesizing ideas from various sources? That does not appear to be what I am seeing. It is more like wresting the scriptures and bending information to your thesis. I do not support such things and do not engage in such idle speculation.

You say you would have wanted to meet during General Conference to discuss the things we are now discussing? In other words, you did not seem to want to pay attention to what is being taught there and would have preferred discussion amongst ourselves rather than pay attention to the words of the living Prophets, Apostles and others? Is that sort of behavior not the source of your current, apparent doctrinal problem?

Also, keep in mind that the D&C says that The Lectures on Faith "are profitable for doctrine and instruction." Yes, I know what it says after that but what it says after that doesn't negate the fact that they "are profitable for doctrine and instruction."

Certainly I would agree that these lectures are profitable for doctrine and instruction. However, they are not revelations and were never presented as such. There are points where they conflict with revelations and not each and every line and phrase of the lectures is of equal value. It is the same with the Old Testament scriptures, which also are profitable for doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16). Of course, not all of the Old Testament is of equal value, either.

I will just leave with a quote by McConkie from Doctrines of the Restoration, p. 196:

When we speak of the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement, we are speaking of the works of Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael. We are talking of the doctrines which are stated or are implicit in our first three articles of faith. We need to come to a unity of the faith as to the labors of each of these glorious beings.

This passage says nothing about Michael being the Holy Ghost, only that Elohim, Jehovah and Michael have specific works detailed in the first three articles of faith. Yet, nowhere is Michael there identified as the Holy Ghost. Michael's part in the Fall is detailed in the second article of faith. Yet, again, nowhere there in this text or any other does Bruce R. McConkie state that Michael is the Holy Ghost.

Here is something else spoken by Bruce R. McConkie on the subject of the Godhead:

We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced....

...The third greatest truth known to mankind is that the Holy Spirit of God is a revelator and a sanctifier, that he [NOT "they"] is a personage of spirit, that his [NOT "their"] assigned ministry and work in the eternal Godhead is to bear record of the Father and Son, to reveal them and their truths to men. His [NOT "their"] work is to cleanse and perfect human souls, to burn dross and evil out of human souls as by fire. We call that the baptism of fire.

(Bruce R. McConkie, Seven Deadly Heresies, 6, 8, bold emphasis, italics and brackets mine)

I close for the night with the following quote from a General Conference address:

When Joseph the prophet received his first manifestation from God, the Father and the Son appeared. The Father did not say a great deal, but we shall find that has been His course from the very beginning, because the Son was His Word. He declared: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him." And He, the Son, was that being, as He told the Nephites, who gave the law to Moses (Third-Nephi 15:5) and He was the Being who had charge of matters from the very beginning. In the Deity there are the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and our father Adam was baptized in their holy name and he is not either one of them. Just remember that.

(Charles W. Penrose, Conference Report, April 1916, p.20)

[shadowrun]

In another thread Mike asserted:

"Yes, it is. That's because it refers to the three persons of the Trinity, not the Trinity plus Michael the Archangel."

I dont believe Michael is part of the Trinity. Further more I have never heard of this concept. I think this is just another false statment to try stir people up.

Agreed. hence the word "Trinity". Otherwise give it another name under such terms. Like the Quartet

[MormonMason]

We believe that in obedience to the Plan, Christ created the world and all that in it is, first spiritually, then temporally, and that in this work of creation he acted as one of the Great Trinity of three distinct personages, the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

--J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, April 1936, p.47

J. Reuben Clark would have been horrified to see his words misused the way you are misusing them. Clark never intended his words to mean that Michael is the Holy Ghost. In point of fact he merely was speaking of Christ being part of the Godhead. The context of Clark's other remarks and teachings shows that he nowhere held that Michael was the Holy Ghost. Have you further contextual quotations from President Clark that solidify your position that he held such a view? Without such a context, the quote above cannot be made to teach such a doctrine.

[CMZ]

...

[consiglieri]

Come now, gentlemen, and let us reason together.

Joseph Smith restored the principle that men are gods in embryo; that as God is, man once was; and that as God is, man may become.

It is commonly believed, with support from general authorities of the Church, that upon being exalted, we will each, together with our spouse, be the God of one world. From that station, we will people that one world with our spirit offspring; to whom we will act as God.

This does not mean that we will not have our same Gods above us, for those who are our Gods now will be our Gods then. But as to the inhabitants of our first world, they will have a different order of things than do we, because they will have us as the God immediately (and exclusively) over their one world, and yet will have other Gods above us; those Gods being our Gods now.

Now, having said all of this, the question may be asked:

Who stands in relation to this earth as we will stand in relation to our first world?

It cannot be Elohim, for we read that he is God of the universe, not just of this world.

It cannot be Jesus Christ as Jehovah, for we read that "by him and through him and of him the worlds are and were created," not just this world.

And if the immediate God of this world is not Elohim nor Jehovah, who then is it?

And if we in our exalted state will be the parents of the spirits of those who inhabit our first world, who then are the mother and father of our spirits?

And does it not make sense to at least accept the possibility that the Father of our spirits may be the immediate God of planet Earth? And that this Father of our spirits is neither Elohim nor Jehovah, but some other individual?

____________________

And would it not make sense to think that, after the inhabitants of our first world have gone on to exaltation, that we as their parent and God would remain their parent and God, and would would be at their head forever?

And if we can say that of ourselves, would it not also make sense for the God who is the immediate God of planet Earth?

And if that is the case, would that not also shed light into the following passage from the Doctrine and Covenants?

D&C 107:54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.

55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.

Just some thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[erichard]

What do you think about this quote:

53 And I [Jehovah] promised him [Adam]

that in that day that he should partake of that fruit

that he should surely die, and it was fulfilled, for

his death came before the thousand years of

his probation.

54 For in that day I called him Adam, for I

changed his name from Michael to that of Adam,

which being interpreted means, "The father of the

children of all men."

55 And thus he died, and his body separated from

his spirit as in the death of any, but here is

mysteries unfolded.

56 Behold I say unto you, that his body is not

corrupted, for it is Eternal, and it lies in a sacred

place until he shall be finished with his work and

take up his body again, and the Holy Ghost be

taken from the earth.

57 For is He not the Holy Ghost, and careth for

and loveth His children, and is their Comforter?

58 For what is the purpose of the Father? To be a

Comforter to His children, to teach them and guide

them, and to speak unto them all manner of Truth,

for is He not the Spirit of Truth?

59 And He shall gather His children together in

the valley of Adam-Ondi-Ahman and require of

each of them their stewardship.

60 Yea, what say ye when ye stand before Him,

can ye then lie?

61 For did He not as the Holy Ghost witness all

your works and doings?

62 Then shall ye bend the knee and acknowledge

the Savior, for is He not the Firstborn of Michael in

the spirit, and the Only Begotten Son of Jehovah in

the flesh, for is He not Mine Only Begotten?

63 For did not the Spirit of Adam encompass Mary

round about to protect her from My glory so that

she would not be consumed by My presence?

64 For is He not Mine Only Begotten in the flesh,

full of grace and truth, and did He not do the same

works as His Father?

65 For as I, Jehovah, suffered, bled, and died for

the sins of the children of My Father, so He

suffered, bled, and died for the sins of the children

of your Father.

66 All that I suffered, He suffered likewise, and

thus fulfilled all things and became the perfect

sacrifice, enabling all to be resurrected.

67 For He broke the bands of death for all of

Adam's children.

68 And to those who truly repent and are baptized

in His name, acknowledging Him as the Savior,

and are faithful in all things to the end, the

promise is that they shall inherit Eternal Lives, and

shall not be angels but Gods, and thus God's

purposes are one eternal round.

Richard

[consiglieri]

What do you think about this quote:

Richard

I think that I do not recognize this quote as scripture.

Though I realize that you do, and respect your right to do so.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Sargon]

Come now, gentlemen, and let us reason together.

Joseph Smith restored the principle that men are gods in embryo; that as God is, man once was; and that as God is, man may become.

It is commonly believed, with support from general authorities of the Church, that upon being exalted, we will each, together with our spouse, be the God of one world. From that station, we will people that one world with our spirit offspring; to whom we will act as God.

This does not mean that we will not have our same Gods above us, for those who are our Gods now will be our Gods then. But as to the inhabitants of our first world, they will have a different order of things than do we, because they will have us as the God immediately (and exclusively) over their one world, and yet will have other Gods above us; those Gods being our Gods now.

Now, having said all of this, the question may be asked:

Who stands in relation to this earth as we will stand in relation to our first world?

It cannot be Elohim, for we read that he is God of the universe, not just of this world.

It cannot be Jesus Christ as Jehovah, for we read that "by him and through him and of him the worlds are and were created," not just this world.

And if the immediate God of this world is not Elohim nor Jehovah, who then is it?

And if we in our exalted state will be the parents of the spirits of those who inhabit our first world, who then are the mother and father of our spirits?

And does it not make sense to at least accept the possibility that the Father of our spirits may be the immediate God of planet Earth? And that this Father of our spirits is neither Elohim nor Jehovah, but some other individual?

____________________

And would it not make sense to think that, after the inhabitants of our first world have gone on to exaltation, that we as their parent and God would remain their parent and God, and would would be at their head forever?

And if we can say that of ourselves, would it not also make sense for the God who is the immediate God of planet Earth?

And if that is the case, would that not also shed light into the following passage from the Doctrine and Covenants?

Just some thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I didn't know you were an 'Adam/God doctrine' kind of guy Consig. While I believe it likely that Adam is the Holy Ghost, I am not on board with you in regards to Adam being both the Father of our race and the Father of our spirits. While I can't rule it out as a possibly strange twist that we will discover at the end, I still believe that the one we call Elohim is the Father of our spirits, that Jehovah is one of us, and Adam is one of us also.

Have you ever considered the Multiple Mortal Probations doctrine?

Sargon

[consiglieri]

I didn't know you were an 'Adam/God doctrine' kind of guy Consig. While I believe it likely that Adam is the Holy Ghost, I am not on board with you in regards to Adam being both the Father of our race and the Father of our spirits. While I can't rule it out as a possibly strange twist that we will discover at the end, I still believe that the one we call Elohim is the Father of our spirits, that Jehovah is one of us, and Adam is one of us also.

Have you ever considered the Multiple Mortal Probations doctrine?

Sargon

I believe that Elohim is the Father of our spirits, but under the proposal I made above, I do not find that belief inconsistent with others being the father of our spirits.

I have many fathers. I have what we call in English a father, a grandfather, and a great-grandfather.

It is worthy of note that, in the language of the scriptures, there are no grandfathers or great-grandfathers.

All male ancestors, no matter how far removed, are referred to simply as "father."

I will also state for the record that I do not believe the "Adam-God Theory" as proposed by Brigham Young. I believe there are parts of that theory that contradict the scriptures. On the other hand, I think there are parts of the currently commonly taught LDS concept that contradict the scriptures.

When we remove from both theories those elements that contradict the scriptures, we are left with a third theory that is both consonant with the scriptures and answers many questions that have heretofore been mysteries.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[kamenraider]

It cannot be Elohim, for we read that he is God of the universe, not just of this world.

It cannot be Jesus Christ as Jehovah, for we read that "by him and through him and of him the worlds are and were created," not just this world.

And if the immediate God of this world is not Elohim nor Jehovah, who then is it?

And if we in our exalted state will be the parents of the spirits of those who inhabit our first world, who then are the mother and father of our spirits?

And does it not make sense to at least accept the possibility that the Father of our spirits may be the immediate God of planet Earth? And that this Father of our spirits is neither Elohim nor Jehovah, but some other individual?

Brigham Young taught that God the Father was the father of Jesus' spirit and also the father of all of our spirits:

The Savior was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between Jesus Christ and you and me.

--Brigham Young, JD 4:218

Wed 7... Prest Young was filled with the spirit of God & revelation & said, ... This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent... Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth ... and had begotten all the spirits 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....

Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Savior) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams 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 come in the spirit to Mary and she conceived)....

--Brigham Young, quoted in Journal of L. John Nuttall, vol. 1, pp.18-21, typescript at BYU HBLL Special Collections.

And would it not make sense to think that, after the inhabitants of our first world have gone on to exaltation, that we as their parent and God would remain their parent and God, and would would be at their head forever?

And if we can say that of ourselves, would it not also make sense for the God who is the immediate God of planet Earth?

Wouldn't it make more sense if we created our own universe, as you seem to recognize that Elohim did?

[auteur55]

In Joseph F. Smith's vision of the spirit world contained in the Doctrine and Covenants he see's Adam and Eve preaching the gospel in the spirit world.

Didn't they come forward in the firstfruits of them that slept?

[kamenraider]

In Joseph F. Smith's vision of the spirit world contained in the Doctrine and Covenants he see's Adam and Eve preaching the gospel in the spirit world.

Didn't they come forward in the firstfruits of them that slept?

I believe that resurrected beings can visit the spirit world.

The resurrection came immediately after Jesus' visit to the spirit world.

As I said though, I don't think that this necessarily means that Adam and Eve had not been resurrected yet.

[Drewm777]

Come now, gentlemen, and let us reason together.

Joseph Smith restored the principle that men are gods in embryo; that as God is, man once was; and that as God is, man may become.

It is commonly believed, with support from general authorities of the Church, that upon being exalted, we will each, together with our spouse, be the God of one world. From that station, we will people that one world with our spirit offspring; to whom we will act as God.

This does not mean that we will not have our same Gods above us, for those who are our Gods now will be our Gods then. But as to the inhabitants of our first world, they will have a different order of things than do we, because they will have us as the God immediately (and exclusively) over their one world, and yet will have other Gods above us; those Gods being our Gods now.

Now, having said all of this, the question may be asked:

Who stands in relation to this earth as we will stand in relation to our first world?

It cannot be Elohim, for we read that he is God of the universe, not just of this world.

It cannot be Jesus Christ as Jehovah, for we read that "by him and through him and of him the worlds are and were created," not just this world.

And if the immediate God of this world is not Elohim nor Jehovah, who then is it?

And if we in our exalted state will be the parents of the spirits of those who inhabit our first world, who then are the mother and father of our spirits?

And does it not make sense to at least accept the possibility that the Father of our spirits may be the immediate God of planet Earth? And that this Father of our spirits is neither Elohim nor Jehovah, but some other individual?

____________________

And would it not make sense to think that, after the inhabitants of our first world have gone on to exaltation, that we as their parent and God would remain their parent and God, and would would be at their head forever?

And if we can say that of ourselves, would it not also make sense for the God who is the immediate God of planet Earth?

And if that is the case, would that not also shed light into the following passage from the Doctrine and Covenants?

Just some thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I have a problem with your basic premise, namely: "It is commonly believed, with support from general authorities of the Church, that upon being exalted, we will each, together with our spouse, be the God of one world."

What if it's not one world, but we, like Elohim, have a whole universe of our own? Any quotes you'd have on this topic would be useful

[MormonMason]

It would be an entirely different matter if President Penrose had said, "He is not any of the three."

http://www.yourdictionary.com/either

I would not make too much of your so-called "precise" use of the word either above in your source, particularly considering the source you used. Even there it states:

...either â?¦ or is sometimes used to refer to more than two, although this use is objected to by some...

Consider also the following from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/either:

As a pronoun either sometimes occurs in reference to more than two (either of the three children), but any is more common in this construction (any of the three children).

President Penrose's remarks above definitely fit into such a category as referring to three, or more than two. Additionally, the words either and one are both indefinite pronouns, and the two are combined, meaning that the combined pronoun is used together as a combined pronoun in President Penrose's remarks, the combined either one referring to and meaning each one of the three persons spoken of in the earlier portion of the sentence. Here is the quote again:

In the Deity there are the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and our father Adam was baptized in their holy name and he is not either one of them.

President Penrose had other remarks that he said on this idea, and the above is in agreement with the context of those. But, sticking to this one for now, he stated that Adam was baptized in their holy name, referring to all three individuals, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. In point of fact, are not all who are baptized into this Church baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost? The first part of the clause is joined together with the conjunction and, which indicates that President Penrose is not breaking the sense by speaking of three persons first and then suddenly shifting to speaking of two persons at the end of the sentence. He is speaking of three persons throughout and the construction and usage bears that out.

Your insistence that the usage of the word either must mean only two, especially when it can and sometimes, as in the above, does mean more than two is the same sort of rigidity of thinking that has led you to see in various passages support for something that is not the doctrine of the Church, that is not even "doctrine" to those who made the comments you press into service, and which simply is not supportable from the scriptures, from the official pronouncements and messages of the First Presidency and the Twelve, or from the temple ceremony taken together as a whole.

So, in other words J. Reuben Clark was saying, "Christ created the earth and when he did so it was because he was part of the Godhead but the Godhead had nothing to do with the creation of the earth (as The Lectures on Faith declare they did) so I'm really just bringing up that Christ is part of the Godhead for no particular reason that has any relevance to my current point." ...

Once again, like you do with the sources you use to "support" the idea that the Holy Ghost is a revolving office with multiple persons filling it, you are twisting my words into something I am not saying. All three were present at creation. But, the scriptures to not ascribe an active role in the creation for the Holy Ghost or, as the Book of Abraham puts it, "the Spirit of the Gods," for solidifying that the Spirit was not an active participant in creating, but in hovering, nourishing/protecting or "brooding over" what is created. However, there is an active role for Jehovah and Michael in the temple ceremony, and for all those others who were present at the time of creation, according to the Book of Abraham. When President made the remarks he did, he was focusing on the creative work of the Son, as part of the Trinity that was present at the creation.

I acknowledge that there are quorums of three in all aspects of the plan of salvation, and that the number three is most perfectly represented in the Deity comprising of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This is not to say that Michael was the Holy Ghost, only that he is part of a quorum of three (but not the quorum of three) in relation to certain aspects of the plan. But Clark's remarks can only be forced into the strain of teaching that Michael was the Holy Ghost. As I said, President Clark did not teach that false doctrine, did not hold to that false doctrine, and his remarks should not and cannot be forced into the mold of that false doctrine.

From Jesus the Christ: The scriptures specify three personages in the Godhead: (1) God the Eternal Father, (2) His Son Jesus Christ, and (3) the Holy Ghost. These constitute the Holy Trinity, comprising three physically separate and distinct individuals, who together constitute the presiding council of the heavens. At least two of these appear as directing participants in the work of creation.

I am glad that you cited this above passage but I think you should check it a little more carefully than you apparently did. Nowhere does this passage teach anything remotely approaching the idea that Michael is or was the Holy Ghost. Point blank, when taking the portion I have bolded, it supports and says exactly what I said above. Thank you for (albeit unwittingly) providing a source to support and strengthen what I said about President Clark's words above.

When we discuss the Gospel it is important that we have the Spirit. Believe it or not but I'm not trying to beat you into philosophical submission. I am simply pointing out quotes and you can infer or not infer what you want to from them....

That so far has been the nature of the quotes you have given; one can infer or not infer what one wants from them, even when it conflicts with what they and the Church has long taught as doctrines of the Gospel. As I asked before, have you anything explicitly in support of the teaching of multiple persons filling the so-called Holy Ghost office?

Nope, I'm just saying I was there listening to the prophets and apostles and not mingling with apostates (since you have a hangup about an "apostate agenda" - I'm still wondering why something like that was ever brought up since I have never quoted from apostates and haven't advocated any course of action against the Church; and when we throw up smoke screens with pedantic barbs like, "Oh, so you were planning on not paying attention in Conference," it only prohibits learning). That's why I mentioned the half hour blocks that I was also there for before and after the session. If it helps settle your mind on the matter, we can meet in the celestial room of the temple after an endowment session, after we have paid attention to all that has been said during the session, not just the part about the creation. We know from Facsimile #2 that there are certain things that are only to be had in the temple . . . truth that can be learned only in the temple, and only when it is revealed to ready minds.

I brought up what I have about apostates because this idea of the multiple persons filling various Godhead offices had its origination with apostate groups. Some who are of that persuasion encourage people to remain members of the Church with active temple recommends so that they can try to sow the seeds of their teaching amongst the members of the Church in hopes of bringing more people into their folds. I do not necessarily say that you are one of these apostates but I have to say that I find it strange that what I said about that bothers you so much. It is like you cannot let it go and keep trying to get me to state that it is you. Guilty conscience, perhaps? I am not yet sure what to make of your reaction. But, to ask me to meet with you in the temple...? You appear to make assumptions as to where you and I live in relation to one another, and you make assumptions as to which temple I might attend with you. Even if I could, I am not sure attending with you would make any difference at this point, particularly if you are indeed one of those sorts of people who hang out with apostates. I do not know you from Adam and I have seen some of the worst people attend the temple over the years--many people who shouldn't. This is not to say that you are one of them but I hope you see my point.

I disagree completely with your views on the sources you press into your service but could not force you to believe other than what you want even if I tried. And, as I have said before, I can see where people get this stuff, but seeing where they get their stuff does not cause me to deviate from my own understanding of the principles of the Gospel. I know by personal revelation that the view you espouse is false and my patriarchal blessing tells me that I will not deviate from that understanding of the principles of the gospel which I have, notwithstanding my understanding of where other people get their ideas.

[Drewm777]

In Joseph F. Smith's vision of the spirit world contained in the Doctrine and Covenants he see's Adam and Eve preaching the gospel in the spirit world.

Didn't they come forward in the firstfruits of them that slept?

I brought this up a long time ago (on this thread). No one seemed to respond. I brought this up to a fundamentalist years ago. He said D&C 138 wasn't a revelation from God (apparently recognizing the contradiction between it and his belief that Michael was a resurrected being before the creation)

[MormonMason]

I brought this up a long time ago. No one seemed to respond. I brought this up to a fundamentalist years ago. He said D&C 138 wasn't a revelation from God (apparently recognizing the contradiction between it and his belief that Michael was a resurrected being before the creation)

Many so-called fundamentalists would say that because they hold that the Church went South and apostatized beginning with Wilford Woodruff. Since Joseph F. Smith received this after that time, this is the reason for their rejection of it--aside from the obvious fact that it contradicts their position on numerous matters.