Adam-god Theory--let's Really Talk About This!

[consiglieri]

My perception throughout this thread has been that Consig is arguing for what BY actually taught and believed, taken at face value, rather than the literal truth or error of what he taught.

Thank you for reading my posts closely enough to discern my intent, which is not to argue about true claims, but to try to figure out what it was that Brigham Young was actually saying.

I have found that it is much easier to understand Brigham Young if we lay truth claims aside.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

By the orthodox doctrine, I meant scriptural views of who Adam was in relationship to Eloheim. I guess there probably wasn't much teaching past the scriptures by his time as prophet, but I don't think he was able to ever fully reconcile his idea's to all of the scriptures anyway. And for someone who doesn't believe in all the AGT you seem determined to argue on its behalf a lot! You should argue from our side once in awhile instead of playing devils advocate!

I thought I was playing Brigham's advocate.

[consiglieri]

Which nuances and details do you not believe in?

While making no truth claims, here is what I believe (since you asked):

I believe that there are things that Brigham Young taught that are supported by the scriptures. I also believe there are things that Brigham Young taught that are not supported by the scriptures.

I believe there are things that the LDS Church currently teaches that are supported by the scriptures. I also believe there are things that the LDS Church currently teaches that are not supported by the scriptures.

When we take away from both sets of teachings those things that are not supported by the scriptures, it is a simple matter to make what is left (i.e. those parts from both views that are supported by the scriptures) to not only harmonize, but to harmonize in such a manner as to explain many otherwise confusing aspects of Mormon doctrine.

Here are the three main things that I do not believe are necessarily supported by the scriptures, but that find their way into one or both of the two different views:

1. Elohim is the immediate father of our spirits;

2. An exalted and resurrected God cannot choose to divest himself of his body if he (or she) desires;

3. Jesus Christ is our elder spirit brother.

All three of these concepts, though not mandated by the scriptures, have become so entwined in the warp and woof of Mormon theology, that it is a hard thing to get most Mormons to question any one of them, much less all three.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Once, Twice, Three Times a Heretic")

[LDSMusic483]

Thank you for reading my posts closely enough to discern my intent, which is not to argue about true claims, but to try to figure out what it was that Brigham Young was actually saying.

I have found that it is much easier to understand Brigham Young if we lay truth claims aside.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I thought I was playing Brigham's advocate.

Well...only if what Brigham said was meant to be taken at face value. If not, then no...if so...well...some anti's claim that both advocates are of equal footing!

[Glenn101]

While making no truth claims, here is what I believe (since you asked):

I believe that there are things that Brigham Young taught that are supported by the scriptures. I also believe there are things that Brigham Young taught that are not supported by the scriptures.

I believe there are things that the LDS Church currently teaches that are supported by the scriptures. I also believe there are things that the LDS Church currently teaches that are not supported by the scriptures.

When we take away from both sets of teachings those things that are not supported by the scriptures, it is a simple matter to make what is left (i.e. those parts from both views that are supported by the scriptures) to not only harmonize, but to harmonize in such a manner as to explain many otherwise confusing aspects of Mormon doctrine.

Here are the three main things that I do not believe are necessarily supported by the scriptures, but that find their way into one or both of the two different views:

1. Elohim is the immediate father of our spirits;

2. An exalted and resurrected God cannot choose to divest himself of his body if he (or she) desires;

3. Jesus Christ is our elder spirit brother.

All three of these concepts, though not mandated by the scriptures, have become so entwined in the warp and woof of Mormon theology, that it is a hard thing to get most Mormons to question any one of them, much less all three.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Once, Twice, Three Times a Heretic")

Consig,

Those three concepts are not mandated by scripture, but numbers one and two are supported by scriptures. True, the word Elohim does not appear in any of the four standard works of the LDS Church. Nor will you find it in most contemporary Bibles. The American Standard version only has it once. The Darby translation equates it with Jehovah. It can be translated either singular or in the plural. But most of the translations acknowledge Elohim to tbe the Father of all spirits. I can find the references if you so desire.

Just remember, when Paul wrote his epistles, much of what he wrote was not supported by extant scripture. Take his (in)famous verse about baptism for the dead, or the three degrees of glory, or the doctrine of salvation by grace, etc.

The same goes for the two epistles of Peter. As far as I can ascertain, the mission of Christ to the spirits in prison and the teaching of the gospel to the dead had not been taught prior to Peter's declaration. Those utterances became scripture, and have been supported by other scriptures by revelation to other prophets.

I have never heard your point number two discussed or taught in any LDS meeting so I will not comment on it. The only thing I have been taught is that God the father and God the Son, Jesus Christ both have bodies of flesh and bones and are exalted beings.

Brigham Young and Joseph Smith absolutely taught things, especially Joseph Smith, taught things that were not supported by any extant scripture. A prophet can, being a prophet, teach things that are not otherwise supported by scripture. He can teach things that amplify current scriptures.

Points one and three have been taught by LDS prophets almost from the beginning of the restoration. They are part of our curriculum of study, as taught by and quoted from prophets.

Brigham Young taught something about Adam and God. If you wish, I will tell you why it is no big deal, unless you want it to be.

Glenn

[consiglieri]

Consig,

Those three concepts are not mandated by scripture, but numbers one and two are supported by scriptures.

Thank you for recognizing the fact that none of those three items are mandated by scripture.

I agree with much of what you say, but the old axiom about just believing what the prophet says will not help us much when we enter an arena, such as that of Adam-God, in which different prophets have said different things.

It is in this arena where we have dueling prophets that I suggest making the scriptures our guide, inasmuch as they are called the "standard works" expressly because they are the standard by which all teachings are to be judged.

In regards to number three, I will refer you to an article published recently in BYU-Studies which argues that the concept that Jesus is spirit brother to all mankind cannot be traced either to scripture or to any authoritative statement by Joseph Smith recorded contemporaneously; it is rather a tradition that has worked its way into the Mormon Church through faulty reasoning and repetition.

http://smithinstitute.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/45.2Volluz.pdf

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[jwhitlock]

In regards to number three, I will refer you to an article published recently in BYU-Studies which argues that the concept that Jesus is spirit brother to all mankind cannot be traced either to scripture or to any authoritative statement by Joseph Smith recorded contemporaneously; it is rather a tradition that has worked its way into the Mormon Church through faulty reasoning and repetition.

http://smithinstitute.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/45.2Volluz.pdf

Actually, the concept of heir - and our being joint heirs with Christ - in the NT has some interesting connotations concerning our possible sibling status with Christ. A search of heir / heirs in the NT, and a reading of the various passages given in their context doesn't put this outside of the realm of possibility.

In some ways we appear to stand with Christ, when it comes to salvation. In other ways He stands apart from us. Context becomes important in determining which situation we're talking about in the scriptures. Christ performs different, complex roles in his relationship to us and the Father.

[Glenn101]

Thank you for recognizing the fact that none of those three items are mandated by scripture.

I agree with much of what you say, but the old axiom about just believing what the prophet says will not help us much when we enter an arena, such as that of Adam-God, in which different prophets have said different things.

It is in this arena where we have dueling prophets that I suggest making the scriptures our guide, inasmuch as they are called the "standard works" expressly because they are the standard by which all teachings are to be judged.

The part of your statement that I have bolded is the reason I do not worry about the Adam-God theory. Heck, Brigham himself said something of the sort, that it was not something that we should worry about. There was a lot in his lectures that we should worry about though, and those themes are still being tayght today.

In regards to number three, I will refer you to an article published recently in BYU-Studies which argues that the concept that Jesus is spirit brother to all mankind cannot be traced either to scripture or to any authoritative statement by Joseph Smith recorded contemporaneously; it is rather a tradition that has worked its way into the Mormon Church through faulty reasoning and repetition.

http://smithinstitute.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/45.2Volluz.pdf

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I read most of the link you provided, and skimmed through the rest. Maybe an exhaustive perusal would change my opinion, but it seems to be saying that the scriptures provide no definitive statement that Jesus is our elder spirit brother (I agree), that Joseph Smith is not recorded as making such a statement. (I sort of disagree), that it began to be expressed somewhat about the time that Joseph Smith was martyred, (which apparently was the case), and had continued until recently. Recent statements have emphasized the Divinity of Jesus Christ and status as a God. This also seems to be accurate, much as the saying "as man is God once was; as God is, man may become" has been deemphasized (i.e. not actively taught), but not rejected as false doctrine. In fact it has been taught in our curriculum and yestified to by Ezra Taft Benson and Thomas S. Monson

Also I have found an article which quotes a secondary source about Joseph Smith identifying Jesus Christ as out elder brother.

In addition to these visits, early chroniclers record other visits of the Savior. For example, Zebedee Coltrin, speaking to the School of the Prophets of the Salt Lake Stakeâ??which included President John Taylor and other general authoritiesâ??said that the Savior had appeared during a meeting two or three weeks after the organization of the original School of the Prophets in Kirtland. He passed through the room without speaking, and Joseph Smith identified the holy visitor: â??That is Jesus, the Son of God, our elder brother.â?

The full article can be found here.

Again, this is not something that I am going to worry about. It is interesting to discuss on forums such as this (which is one of the reasons I believe that forums such as this exist), but the scriptures that we have and the guidance of our current prophets are all that we need to get by. I want to find out what God wants for me, and how to get it.

Glenn

[kamenraider]

These quotes lead me to believe that Joseph Smith recognized Jesus Christ as our elder brother:

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably it will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, "What is the name of God in, the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman-the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo-man."

--Orson Pratt, February 18, 1855, JD 2:342.

Comparing the above quote with the next three from the D&C and Pof GP, it doesn't seem too hard to believe that there was such a revelation to Joseph Smith:

D&C 78: 20 Wherefore, do the things which I have commanded you, saith your Redeemer, even the Son Ahman, who prepareth all things before he taketh you;

D&C 95: 17 And let the higher part of the inner court be dedicated unto me for the school of mine apostles, saith Son Ahman; or, in other words, Alphus; or, in other words, Omegus; even Jesus Christ your Lord. Amen.

Moses 6:57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.

April the 6th, 1843. By Joseph Smith.

Now concerning spirits, first of all, or in the beginning, the great Elohim in the Hebrew meaning the God of all Gods, called a Grand Council and counseled to form that planet on which we do now dwell. They spoke and earth from chaos sprang by their workmanship. Chaos being made into element. They saw till time should be no more and they spoke concerning redemption of this world and formed limited circumstances concerning the redemption. Jesus Christ being the greater light or of more intelligence, for he loved righteousness and hated iniquity, he being the Elder Brother presented himself for to come and redeem this world as it was his right by inheritance. He stated he could save all those who did not sin against the Holy Ghost and they would obey the code of laws that were given. But their circumstances were that all who would sin against the Holy Ghost should have no forgiveness neither in this world or in the world to come, for they strove against light and knowledge after they tasted of the good things of the world to come. They should not have any forgiveness in the world to come because they had a knowledge of the things of the world to come and were not willing to abide of the laws of the world to come. Therefore they can have no forgiveness there, but must be most miserable of all and never can be renewed again (referred to Hebrews Ch. 6).

--Autobiography of George Laub (1814-1880) Typescript, pg. 9, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, BYU (see also Eugene England, â??George Laubâ??s Nauvoo Journal,â? BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (1978): 171.)

"On one occasion," continues Dr. Anderson, "while out riding together, visiting a country patient, he related to me many of the Prophet's mental peculiarities, and his revelations on various subjects, including the pre-existence of spirits, and kindred themes.

We were predestined to undergo probation here, to serve an allotted time on earth, in order to test our integrity and faith, and determine the fact of our strength to overcome the wiles and devices of Lucifer. We were too apt to underrate his power; he is a mighty factor in this world. When driven from the presence of his Father and Elder Brother, he had influence enough, even in heaven, to take with him one-third of its hosts, to assist him in his work of destruction."

--"John Milton Bernhisel," in Orson F. Whitney, History of Utah, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City, Utah: G. Q. Cannon & Sons Co., 1904), 4:664-65.

At another time after fasting and prayer, Joseph told us that we should see the glory of God, and I saw a personage passing through the room as plainly as I see you now. Joseph asked us if we knew who it was, and answered himself. "That is Jesus, our elder brother, the Son of God." Again, I saw passing through the same room a personage whose glory and brightness was so great that I can liken it to nothing but the burning bush that Moses saw, and its power was so great that had it continued much longer, I believe it would have consumed us.

--Zebedee Coltrin Address, Minutes of the High Priest Meeting, Spanish Fork, Utah, February 5, 1878, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah, pg. 103. For similar account mentioning Joseph calling Jesus our "elder brother", see "Statement of Zebedee Coltrin." Minutes, 3 October 1883, Salt Lake School of Prophets, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah, pg. 66.

edit: This seems to fit fine with Brigham Young's lecture in the Nuttall journal in Feb. 1877, and with Lorenzo Snow's talk to Edward Stevenson regarding Adam-God, after which he (E.S.) wrote of Jesus being 4th after Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, and called him "Jesus Christ, Our Elder Brother, in the other World from whence our spirits come."

[BCSpace]

You caught me!

I confess that I, like Joe Biden, totally plagiarized what you had written elsewhere without giving you credit. But the reason I didn't give you credit is because I didn't want to offend you in any way by posting here what you had posted . . . er . . . somewhere else.

I cannot be offended

And when I read what you wrote, it was like a breath of freaking' fresh air just to hear somebody actually say what it is that the Watson theory is in thumbnail form. Pretty much all I have gotten on this board is Watson Theory subscribers speaking of the Watson theory in hushed whispers as if it is sacrosanct or something; unwilling to give any details as to what it actually means; though I confess that quite frequently they would give the same link as you.

I put my money where my mouth is.

The only way I was able to get them out of the closet was to post your thumbnail version and get them to admit or deny if that is what the Watson Theory really is; and to a man, they have all admitted it, which of course was what we needed to have happen to get the ball rolling as to the actual merits of the Watson Theory as an interpretive guide to Brigham Young; which lest we forget is what this entire thread is supposed to be about.

I appreciate the fact that you are willing to simply state it right out loud, while noting at the same time that you do not subscribe to Elden Watson's interpretation of Brigham Young (which you hold to be correct) as anything more than Brigham Young's opinion, anyway.

Perhaps it is easier to just be up front about teachings we don't believe. I don't know. Thanks anyway, BC!

You're welcome!

I think your number one mistake was to go to the conclusion directly without understanding the context. Elden Watson assumes (correctly I believe) that BY would have also believed the things that were taught previous and were doctrines and scriptures of the Church. Therefore you have as a basis things like Adam was not a resurrected being nor was he married when he first entered the garden, therefore, he (the Adam who fell) could not possibly have been Elohim.

This is the great strength of Elden's theory. He presupposes that BY is a believer. I think most people would not find that unreasonable.

I see this is the great weakness of Elden's theory.

It presupposes that Brigham Young (though obviously a believer) was really not teaching anything remarkable or worthy of the incredible controversy and acrimony that history tells us his teachings caused.

Incorrect. Having an Adam Sr. fits that description.

This is where Watson engages in the circular reasoning part of his argument (which is based almost entirely on circular reasoning).

The circular reasoning is yours because of your incorrect supposition above.

Well, says Watson, it's obvious that the Mormons believed that Adam was not a resurrected being when he came to the Garden (a fact that is, incidentally, by no means obvious); and therefore Brigham Young could not have believed that, and therefore Brigham Young could not have taught that.

Adam Sr. that is.

What makes it worse is that, in order to establish his proposition that "Mormons believe that Adam was not a resurrected being," Watson cites to 20th century LDS writings to make his case!

So what he is really saying is this: Because 20th Century LDS leaders taught that Mormons believe Adam was not a resurrected being, 19th century Brigham Young could not have taught that Adam was a resurrected being; in spite of the fact that on several occasons Brigham Young taught that Adam was a resurrected being.

It doesn't get a whole lot more circular than that!

Well here is yet another demonstration that you must not have read the whole thing. Especially your 2% argument in another post. Please read it again and state the four items to which he attributes the 2%. Notice the examples he gave of each.

[John Larsen]

I think that we don't fully know what Brigham meant when he espoused the AG theory. He didn't leave us an overwhelming deal of explanation, did he?

If only the Church had a way of interpreting the words of modern prophets so that we could understand what they were saying. A person that could give a restoration of the lost teachings of the primitive modern church. Someone who could go directly to God and ask and explain in plain language. What we need is something like a prophet.

[stn9]

If only the Church had a way of interpreting the words of modern prophets so that we could understand what they were saying. A person that could give a restoration of the lost teachings of the primitive modern church. Someone who could go directly to God and ask and explain in plain language. What we need is something like a prophet.

That would be really cool. But, alas, the decision about what to do about the doctrine was made long ago:

In December 1897 the First Presidency and seven members of the Quorum of the Twelve reviewed an article published in the Fresno Republican, which was written by President Ephraim Nye of the California Mission, defending Brigham Young's Adam God teachings. According to Frankiln D. Richards who was present at that meeting, "Each of the Presidency and several of the Apostles expressed themselves well pleased" with Nye's article. "The Council did not deem it wise to lay out any line of procedure in which to deal with the subject, but felt that it is best to avoid bringing it up, and to do the best we can and as the Spirit may suggest when it is thrust upon us.... This, like many other points of more advanced doctrine, is too precious a pearl to be cast before swine. But when the swine get hold of them, let us rescue them by the help of the Spirit as best we can" (Letter, F. D. Richards to E. H. Nye, 18 December 1897, Church Archives).

It has been reported to me that another source (which I have yet to see) states that this "Council," on or about the date of the aforementioned letter, made a covenant to rescue this doctrine by remaining silent on it forever. That explains why later leaders (Joseph Fielding Smith Jr, Mark E. Petersen, Bruce R. McConkie, Spencer W. Kimball, et. al.) had little knowledge of what Brigham Young really taught and believed and said he was likely misquoted or even that he was wrong. It must be remembered that some of the most detailed and lengthy sources on what Brigham Young taught lay forgotten in Church Archives until the 1970s and were probably unknown by the majority of those leaders who wrote on the subject (I have never seen evidence, for instance, that Bruce R. McConkie ever saw the 8 October 1854 sermon transcript and I know that at least one person who could have brought it to his attention or ask him about it did not do so).

It is hardly reasonable to claim that Brigham Young's teachings on this were rejected by the Church (it was never put to a sustaining vote) or by its highest leaders (at least not by the majority of those who lived to hear it preached). And it seems a very strained view to think the Brigham Young was merely teaching what we commonly believe and teach in the Church today. Equally difficult to support is the idea that Brigham Young was merely teaching details about a truth commonly believed and taught in the Church today (which is all Watson's view amounts to).

Be that as it may, President Wilford Woodruff's declaration in 1895 is still the best caution for those pursuing this topic:

"I want to say this to all Israel: Cease troubling yourselves about who God is; who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things? God has revealed Himself, and when the 121st section of the Doctrine and Covenants is fulfilled, whether there be one God or many gods they will be revealed to the children of men, as well as all thrones and dominions, principalities, and powers. Then why trouble yourselves about these things? 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" (Collected Discourses 4:292)

Study it? If you are so inclined. Ponder over it? Sure. But don't let it trouble you; don't let it trouble you that you or others don't understand it.

And the modern Church isn't apostate because we don't teach or understand it. And do be careful and attentive when reading the details. Brigham Young never taught that Adam was Elohim or that there are two divine presidencies--one consisting of Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael; the other of Elohim, Jehovah, and the Holy Ghost. What he did say was that there are two presidencies, the second representing the first: "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" (Journal of Discourses 1:51).

There is nothing wrong or incorrect or misleading with taking Brigham Young's teaching:

Elohim

Jehovah

Michael = Adam = Father

..............................Christ

..............................Holy Ghost

and making it (as in today's teaching):

Elohim=Father

Jehovah=Christ

Unnamed spirit=Holy Ghost

Michael=Adam

because:

Elohim ≈ Father

Jehovah ≈ Christ

Michael = Adam ≈ Holy Ghost

(≈ means "is represented by")

That is how the two presidencies proposed by Brigham Young relate to each other. Again, today's teacing is not wrong or incorrect; it merely does not provide all the details. But it doesn't matter which Father and Son the Holy Ghost testifies of because they represent each other, because they are one. So, what do you think of Christ? Whose Son is He? "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 'The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?' If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" And no man was or is able to answer him, neither dared any man from that day forth ask him any more questions on the matter.

Not much has changed in the last 200 or 2,000 years: "Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God that will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel because of their folly with regard to it. They yet grovel in darknessâ??and will" (Brigham Young, 8 October 1861). Grovel away.

[baddonkey]

...

Here are the three main things that I do not believe are necessarily supported by the scriptures, but that find their way into one or both of the two different views:

1. Elohim is the immediate father of our spirits;

2. An exalted and resurrected God cannot choose to divest himself of his body if he (or she) desires;

3. Jesus Christ is our elder spirit brother.

All three of these concepts, though not mandated by the scriptures, have become so entwined in the warp and woof of Mormon theology, that it is a hard thing to get most Mormons to question any one of them, much less all three.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Once, Twice, Three Times a Heretic")

Does this mean that you believe that Jesus was the spirit son of Elohim and had lived on another earth, and that we are spirit children of Michael?

[consiglieri]

Does this mean that you believe that Jesus was the spirit son of Elohim and had lived on another earth, and that we are spirit children of Michael?

"Believe" may be too strong a word, but I think such a scenario makes the best sense of the available evidence, and I am certainly open to this as a possiblity.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

These quotes lead me to believe that Joseph Smith recognized Jesus Christ as our elder brother:

Comparing the above quote with the next three from the D&C and Pof GP, it doesn't seem too hard to believe that there was such a revelation to Joseph Smith:

edit: This seems to fit fine with Brigham Young's lecture in the Nuttall journal in Feb. 1877, and with Lorenzo Snow's talk to Edward Stevenson regarding Adam-God, after which he (E.S.) wrote of Jesus being 4th after Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, and called him "Jesus Christ, Our Elder Brother, in the other World from whence our spirits come."

Thanks for the research and the quotes, kamenraider!

I agree with you that Brigham Young taught that Jesus Christ is "our Elder Brother, in the World from whence our spirits come" (while teaching that all the inhabitants of this earth, Jesus included, are the spirit offspring of Adam/Michael).

In this sense, both Brigham Young and current LDS doctrine teach that Jesus Christ is our elder spirit brother.

On this point, I respectfully disagree with both Brigham Young and current LDS doctrine.

Heretically yours,

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

There is nothing wrong or incorrect or misleading with taking Brigham Young's teaching:

Elohim

Jehovah

Michael = Adam = Father

..............................Christ

..............................Holy Ghost

and making it (as in today's teaching):

Elohim=Father

Jehovah=Christ

Unnamed spirit=Holy Ghost

Michael=Adam

because:

Elohim ≈ Father

Jehovah ≈ Christ

Michael = Adam ≈ Holy Ghost

(≈ means "is represented by")

I appreciate your comments and like your chart.

For what it is worth (which admittedly is not much), I tend to think that there are not two Presidencies over the earth, but one. Similarly, I think there are not two "Trinities," but only the one.

Because we understand the Father to be Elohim, and the Son to be Jesus Christ, I do not think it is going too far to consider the possibility that Michael is the Holy Ghost.

For what it is worth . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I cannot be offended

Then I'm obviously not working hard enough.

As long as we can recognize that the idea of an Adam, Sr. is purely the invention of Elden Watson created solely in order to make Brigham Young's teachings match current LDS doctrine, I have no objection to your using such an appelation to describe Elohim.

Even though nobody else did before Elden Watson.

There. Am I starting to offend you yet?

Just a little?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bat-Man]

I do not think it is going too far to consider the possibility that Michael is the Holy Ghost.

IF Adam/Michael is/was the Holy Ghost, it seems certain other things would also need to be true, like:

1) Adam/Michael has never received a testimony from the Holy Ghost, or if he did or he has, it was simply his own testimony and not a testimony from some other person called the Holy Ghost.

2) Adam/Michael hasn't been resurrected, yet, which is why the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, only.

3) A person can be forgiven for speaking against Jesus Christ, but not for rejecting Adam's testimony.

4) It is Adam who is bearing his witness to us, when we receive a testimony from the Holy Ghost.

... and there are possibly some other considerations that I am not listing, at the moment.

For what it is worth . . .

And btw, consig, you are no longer on my ignore list, at the moment.

[consiglieri]

Does this mean that you believe that Jesus was the spirit son of Elohim and had lived on another earth, and that we are spirit children of Michael?

P.S. It might also be noted that, if such is the case, it would tend to give a definitive answer to the old Mormon chestnut of how it is that Jesus (not to mention the Holy Ghost!) managed to achieve godhood in the pre-mortal existence.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDSMusic483]

IF Adam/Michael is/was the Holy Ghost, it seems certain other things would also need to be true, like:

1) Adam/Michael has never received a testimony from the Holy Ghost, or if he did or he has, it was simply his own testimony and not a testimony from some other person called the Holy Ghost.

2) Adam/Michael hasn't been resurrected, yet, which is why the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, only.

3) A person can be forgiven for speaking against Jesus Christ, but not for rejecting Adam's testimony.

4) It is Adam who is bearing his witness to us, when we receive a testimony from the Holy Ghost.

... and there are possibly some other considerations that I am not listing, at the moment.

For what it is worth . . .

And btw, consig, you are no longer on my ignore list, at the moment.

Not to mention the issues it would create with Moses 6:64-66

[consiglieri]

IF Adam/Michael is/was the Holy Ghost, it seems certain other things would also need to be true, like:

1) Adam/Michael has never received a testimony from the Holy Ghost, or if he did or he has, it was simply his own testimony and not a testimony from some other person called the Holy Ghost.

2) Adam/Michael hasn't been resurrected, yet, which is why the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, only.

3) A person can be forgiven for speaking against Jesus Christ, but not for rejecting Adam's testimony.

4) It is Adam who is bearing his witness to us, when we receive a testimony from the Holy Ghost.

... and there are possibly some other considerations that I am not listing, at the moment.

For what it is worth . . .

And btw, consig, you are no longer on my ignore list, at the moment.

The Holy Ghost is an office, and whoever fills that office must be a personage of spirit and it is his job to bear testimony of the truth.

Obviously, somebody else had to fill the office of Holy Ghost while Adam was in mortality.

Adam received a witness from the Holy Ghost.

But it is interesting, and potentially significant, that the Holy Ghost that spoke to Adam identified himself as the "Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning." (Moses 5:9)

You can put me back on your ignore list now.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDSMusic483]

The Holy Ghost is an office, and whoever fills that office must be a personage of spirit and it is his job to bear testimony of the truth.

Obviously, somebody else had to fill the office of Holy Ghost while Adam was in mortality.

Adam received a witness from the Holy Ghost.

But it is interesting, and potentially significant, that the Holy Ghost that spoke to Adam identified himself as the "Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning." (Moses 5:9)

You can put me back on your ignore list now.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

This being said, I don't believe it fits into the formula bracket that Michael = HG. If someone else could fill in for Adam while he was on the earth, why not multiple individuals? Perhaps it is a calling of Prophets or Archangels and they rotate through before their dispensations?

[Bat-Man]

The Holy Ghost is an office...

Is Elohim an office too, in your perspective? How about Jesus Christ? Is He an office?

Where do you get this stuff, officially? (CFR)

...and whoever fills that office must be a personage of spirit

Or, perhaps... the person who fills that office IS a personage of spirit, at least for now.

... and it is his job to bear testimony of the truth.

Perhaps that's just what He does, rather than because it is His "job".

Obviously, somebody else had to fill the office of Holy Ghost while Adam was in mortality.

IF He was someone else, you mean, which would then mean:

1) Adam hasn't always been the person known as the Holy Ghost.

2) There are (at least) two persons who are known as the Holy Ghost.

3) The person who is the Holy Ghost isn't always the same person, and by extension, Elohim and Jesus Christ may not always be the same persons.

... and possibly some other things I may not be mentioning right now, IF you are right.

Adam received a witness from the Holy Ghost.

Which means, possibly:

1) Adam received a witness from Himself or some other person who was also known by one of the other names that Adam is known by.

2) Adam didn't know something until it was revealed to him by some other person.

3) The person who is the Holy Ghost hasn't always known everything that He knows now.

... and possibly some other things I may not be mentioning right now, IF you are right.

But it is interesting, and potentially significant, that the Holy Ghost that spoke to Adam identified himself as the "Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning." (Moses 5:9)

Which means, possibly, that:

1) Jesus Christ is the same person who is or was once known as the Holy Ghost.

2) The Trinitarians may actually have 2 out of 3 right, after all.

You can put me back on your ignore list now.

Okay. Thank you for your permission. I'll give your comments due consideration.

[stn9]

Because we understand the Father to be Elohim, and the Son to be Jesus Christ, I do not think it is going too far to consider the possibility that Michael is the Holy Ghost.

Well, as far as Elohim = Our Father (the Father of our spirits), Brigham Young did not teach that. In fact, Elohim isn't merely one person. But, agian, it doesn't matter which "Father" you want to talk about the Father--Our Father--represents all the other Fathers--the Gods, the Elohim. At the risk of being repetative, Brigham taught as clear as I can make out:

Elohim

Jehovah

Michael = Adam = Father

..............................Christ

..............................Holy Ghost

That can also be expressed without the A-G specific details as:

Elohim ≈ Our Father

Jehovah ≈ Our Christ

Michael = Adam ≈ Holy Ghost

Which can be further simplified without error or deception as:

Elohim=Our Father

Jehovah=Christ

Unnamed spirit=Holy Ghost

Michael=Adam

This is precisely why the devout Jewish philosopher Philo could say of Moses, "For he was also called the god and king of the whole nation..." (On the Life of Moses, 1:158) and why in Exodus Moses is told he will be "elohim" to Aaron (4:16) and Pharaoh (7:1). (BTW, the KJV translation is bad in these verses; literally it reads in Hebrew: "..and you will be to him as elohim" and "...I have made you elohim to Pharaoh...".)

So this is what we teach today because it is true and doesn't cause problems with members of the Church the rest of the Christian world. But I am not willing to contort Brigham Young's teachings or dismiss them as incorrect merely because I can't find the way it all fits together (becasue I think they can).

[stn9]

No prophet has ever taught that Adam was the Holy Ghost and I find absolutely no reason to believe he is or was. The closest you can come to that is: "...the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" (JD 1:51).

But I agree: the Holy Ghost is filling a calling or office that has been and can be filled by any unembodied spirit personage God appoints.

[consiglieri]

Where do you get this stuff, officially? (CFR)

I gave you a reference from the Book of Moses, where the Holy Ghost identified himself as the Only Begotten of the Father.

From this, I take it that the Holy Ghost in Adam's day was the premortal Jesus Christ.

That would be the most straightforward reading of the passage, though I understand that some Mormons have tried to circumvent the plain meaning by inventing doctrines such as "divine investiture of authority."

*Puts himself back on Paul Ray's ignore list*

All the Best!

--Consiglieri