Adam-god

[LDSMusic483]

Good morning to you, LDSMusic!

To my knowledge, which is far from encyclopedic, Brigham Young never taught anything regarding to whom our worship is appropriately directed in this context, so anything I say would be purely speculative.

However, if I were to speculate, I think Brigham Young would be fine with Latter-day Saints worshipping God the Father of our spirits (Adam), or any God above Adam, up to and including Elohim.

It helps to remember that it was Joseph Smith who controverted all of Christendom by assigning to Adam a high and holy calling over this world.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Good morning right back at you!

I figure I'll just keep shooting my prayers up to my "Father in Heaven" and let them decide who wants to answer the phone!

[Olavarria]

1. The Journal of Discourses and the Millenial Star were the equivalent of the Conference Report in the Ensign today. What would you say to the Saints in the 1850s about what they should believe?

"I love you guys; you are so cool. I want to be just like you. You gave up your whole life in Scotland to walk across the plains and I can't even get 100% in my hometeaching?" Thats what I would say.

2. Agreed. But that doesn't make Brigham Young wrong or them right, or vice versa. Such behavior has always occurred.

BY is actually my favorite prophet. He da man.

3. The whole point of the famous "Adam-God" sermon was to correct the elders of the Church in regards to doctrine. On the face of it, I'd say it's the biggest failed talk of a Church president ever.

I wasn't aware that there was an "Adam-God sermon". For me , it just seems like a topic that came in and out of what where otherwise extemporaneous talks that covered a variety of subjects.

4. I'm aware of them in the general nuances: 1. The "fundamentalist" theory you like putting in quotes. 2. The 2nd Book of Commandments theory/revelation that Michael is not resurrected and is the Holy Ghost. 3. The Multiple Mortal Probation theory. Are you aware of some others? I'd be interested in discussing them in a few weeks.

Looks like there are more than three. Look up the book(s) Doctrines of Salvation by JFS, Mormon Doctrine by BRM, any fundamentalist rag and the Adam-God paper by Elden Watson. Those are the 3 Adam-God theories I refer to.

5. Nice smear tactic. Associate those with a testimony of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's role as a prophet with anti-Mormons such as the Tanners who get their ill-gotten gain by living a life in service to the adversary, lies, and false doctrine.

Honestly, I wasn't trying to smear anyone. Is there anyone inside or outside the Church who advocates "Adam-God" more than the anti's and the fundamentalists? I salute the fundamentalists for their testimony of the restoration. There is hope for them yet. But even you have to admit that they like to dump on HJG as if they were anti's. So on some issues, I can lump the two groups together.

Brigham Young: expand

Joseph F. Smith: a backer of Talmadge

Thats interesting, the Apostolic United Bretheren consider Joseph F. Smith to be the last President of the Church to be a Prophet in the fullest sense of the word. The FLDS say it is John Taylor.

Heber J. Grant: a guy who didn't know the Church was true

He did know.

So I went to the president's office, and there sat brother Teasdale, and all of the ten Apostles, and the Presidency of the Church, and also Seymour B. Young and the members of the seven presidents of Seventies. And the revelation was read calling brother Teasdale and myself to the apostleship, and brother Seymour B. Young to be one of the seven presidents of Seventies. Brother Teasdale was blessed by President John Taylor, and George Q. Cannon blessed me...

I was a very unhappy man from October to February. For the next four months whenever I would bear my testimony of the divinity of the Savior, there seemed to be a voice that would say: "You lie, because you have never seen him." One of the brethren had made the remark that unless a man had seen the Lamb of God --- that was his expression --- he was not fit to be an Apostle. This feeling that I have mentioned would follow me. I would wake up in the night with the impression: "You do not know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, because you have never seen him," and the same feeling would come to me when I would preach and bear testimony. It worried me from October to the following February.

I was in Arizona, traveling with Brigham Young, Jr., and a number of other brethren, visiting the Navajo Indians and the Moki Indians... I had this feeling that I ought not to testify any more about the Savior and that really, I was not fit to be an Apostle. It seemed overwhelming to me that I should be one. There was a spirit that said: "If you have not seen the Savior, why don't you resign your position?"

As I rode along alone, I seemed to see a Council in Heaven. The Savior was there; the Prophet Joseph was there; my father and others that I knew were there. In this Council it seemed that they decided that a mistake had been made in not filling the vacancies in the quorum of the Twelve, and conference had adjourned. The chances were the brethren would wait another six months, and the way to remedy the situation was to send a revelation naming the men who should fill the vacancies. In this council the Prophet said, "I want to be represented by one of my own on that council."

I had always understood and known that my mother was sealed to the Prophet, and that Brigham Young had told my father that he would not marry my mother to him for eternity, because he had instructions from the Prophet that if anything happened to him before he was married to Rachel Ivins she must be sealed to him for eternity, that she belonged to him.

That is the reason that father spoke up in this council to which I have referred, and said: "Why not choose the boy who bears my name who belongs to you, to be one of the Apostles?" That is the inspiration that was given to me.

I can truthfully say that from February, 1883, until today I have never had any of that trouble, and I can bear testimony that I know that God lives and that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the world, and that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of the living God... (Improvement Era, Nov. 1942, pp. 756-757.)

Joseph Fielding Smith: a believer in Orson Prattism

Define Orson Prattism. Can you provide some quotes from The Seer revelative to the nature of God and show how they are the same as JFielding's.

Bruce R. McConkie: you officially got my goat. Here's some quotes from Elder McConkie. Ask yourself if they're Christlike?

I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that in his daily walk BRM was more Christlike than you and I combined. I don't have anyway of proving that but Id be willing to bet on that proposition.

Spencer W. Kimball: And if I believe that Orson Prattism is wrong, and the truth as revealed to Brigham Young is right, what's there to disagree with besides the fact that he was wrong.

Huh?

I think it is interesting that in your descriptions of Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, Joseph Fielding Smith and Spencer W. Kimball you left out: Prophet of God. If they are Prophets of God and have the same mantle and authority Brigham did then their statements on the matter are just as authoritative as anything Brigham said.

7. Agreed. Like all the fog-machine wielding apologists try to use to cover it up. (I can't remember who first used that phrase, Cinepro maybe? I loved it.)

I would also add that Gordon B. Hinkley, Exra Taft Benson, Bruce R. McConkie fell victim to the same beast.

8. It is a name title as well. Agreed.

and

Bottom line:

1. BY did teach Adam-God.

2. Our critics will never let go of it as long as Mormons are in denial.

(I tried as long as I could, but I just couldn't resist contributing! )

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

and

Now, here's what Joseph Smith had to say in one of his very last sermons:

I love the Restored Gospel. I love Heavenly Father and Mother, and I love our Elder Brother the Savior Jesus Christ, the only name by which we can be saved. I love Joseph Smith, I know he was a prophet of God. So please don't lump with nefarious anti-mormons.

Fair enough, but there are only two groups on the earth today which bash the living prophets.

For what it's worth, when it comes to the creation of the human species on this planet, I have no problem with the Adam-God theory. I have no problem with Darwinian evolution either. Whether the ultimate progetinor of my physical body was a trilobyte that crawled out of an ocean unto some beach 3,000,000,00 years ago or God Himself 7,000,000 years ago or some other miraculous means is of no importance to me. God The Father is the literal father of my spirit and I lived with Him before I came here and that was only 28 years ago(for me at least).

It makes no difference to me if I know how my physical body was created, Heavenly Father knows. It makes no difference to me if I know how many wives I need to be exalted 1,3,7...Heavenly Father knows. Heavenly Father knows everything.

Heavenly Father placed Joseph Smith, BY, JT ,WW,LS,JFS,HJG,GAS,DOM,JFS,HBL,SWK,ETB,HWH,GBH and Thomas S. Monson as Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He allowed them to be ordained and set apart in an unbroken chain of Prophets, Seers and Revelators.....and thats good enough for me.

I'll take three General Conference talks from Thomas S. Monson, Henry B. Eyhring and Dieter F. Uctdorf over all the conference talks given by then Presidents John Taylor, George Q. Cannon and Jospeh F. Smith combined.

And I'll bet you a million dollars that if John Taylor and Brigham Young were posting on MADB they would agree with me.

[consiglieri]

Good morning right back at you!

I figure I'll just keep shooting my prayers up to my "Father in Heaven" and let them decide who wants to answer the phone!

As I understand it, they are all "one" anyway, so one should be as good as another.

They're fungible, don't you know?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Fair enough, but there are only two groups on the earth today which bash the living prophets.

I would hope that I could conclude that Brigham Young did teach something regarding our relationship with Adam that is quite different from current Church teaching without being considered one who bashes the living prophets.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Notquitewetyet]

"I love you guys; you are so cool. I want to be just like you. You gave up your whole life in Scotland to walk across the plains and I can't even get 100% in my hometeaching?" Thats what I would say.

BY is actually my favorite prophet. He da man.

Good so far.

I wasn't aware that there was an "Adam-God sermon". For me , it just seems like a topic that came in and out of what where otherwise extemporaneous talks that covered a variety of subjects.

I meant the one in JoD 1:46-53 given on April 9, 1852. The one with "Hear it Jew, Hear it Gentile"

Looks like there are more than three. Look up the book(s) Doctrines of Salvation by JFS, Mormon Doctrine by BRM, any fundamentalist rag and the Adam-God paper by Elden Watson. Those are the 3 Adam-God theories I refer to.

Okay. And lets not even go the TLC route.

Honestly, I wasn't trying to smear anyone. Is there anyone inside or outside the Church who advocates "Adam-God" more than the anti's and the fundamentalists? I salute the fundamentalists for their testimony of the restoration. There is hope for them yet. But even you have to admit that they like to dump on HJG as if they were anti's. So on some issues, I can lump the two groups together.

Okay. But note that Fundamentalists do it out of love of the Prophets and the Gospel. Antis have a wholly different reason for doing so

Thats interesting, the Apostolic United Bretheren consider Joseph F. Smith to be the last President of the Church to be a Prophet in the fullest sense of the word. The FLDS say it is John Taylor.

I can sustain all the Prophets as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and head of the Church organization and future Kingdom of God. I don't have the priesthood, and I generally believe that freelance polygamy is forbidden. A man doesn't have to be a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator" to be President of the Church, or if they are, they're pretty tight-lipped.

He did know.

This is interesting. I'll have to think about it. Thanks.

Define Orson Prattism. Can you provide some quotes from The Seer revelative to the nature of God and show how they are the same as JFielding's.

Conflict in the Quorum is a good read. Here's a blurb from the page on Signature Books:

Ironically, Orson Pratt would have the last word both because Young preceded him in death and because several of Young's teachings and policies had proven unpopular among the other apostles. One of Young's counselors said shortly after the president's death that "some of my brethren ... even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he [Young] took liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled." Meanwhile, Pratt continued to hold sway with some of his colleagues. His thoughtfulâ??if ultra-literalisticâ??interpretations of scripture would also influence such later church leaders as Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/quorum.htm

I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that in his daily walk BRM was more Christlike than you and I combined. I don't have anyway of proving that but Id be willing to bet on that proposition.

I'll not go into this, but there were lots of people who felt that BRM was manipulative in regards to Mormon Doctrine and the wishes of McKay, and there are plenty of stories that float around about his reactions to sincere questions. But it seems that to those who agreed with him, he could be quite amiable.

Huh?

SWK followed Orson Prattism. I find it highly ironic that such places as FAIR go out of their way to repudiate The Seer, when for the last 100 years the views of the Presidents of the Church have been in line with those of Orson Pratt.

I think it is interesting that in your descriptions of Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, Joseph Fielding Smith and Spencer W. Kimball you left out: Prophet of God. If they are Prophets of God and have the same mantle and authority Brigham did then their statements on the matter are just as authoritative as anything Brigham said.

I would also add that Gordon B. Hinkley, Exra Taft Benson, Bruce R. McConkie fell victim to the same beast.

I view them as Presidents/Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One of my favorite quotes from Br. Brigham:

I will now say, not only to our delegate to Congress, but to the Elders who leave the body of the Church, that he thought that all the cats and kittens were let out of the bag when brother Pratt went back last fall, and published the Revelation concerning the plurality of wives: it was thought there was no other cat to let out. But allow me to tell you, Elders of Israel, and delegates to Congress, you may expect an eternity of cats, that have not yet escaped from the bag. Bless your souls, there is no end to them, for if there is not one thing, there will always be another.

So where are the cats?

Fair enough, but there are only two groups on the earth today which bash the living prophets.

Where's the evidence of them being prophets? Good men, sure, but prophets who are gods to their people on earth?

or God Himself 7,000,000 years ago or some other miraculous means is of no importance to me. God The Father is the literal father of my spirit and I lived with Him before I came here and that was only 28 years ago(for me at least).

It makes no difference to me if I know how my physical body was created, Heavenly Father knows. It makes no difference to me if I know how many wives I need to be exalted 1,3,7...Heavenly Father knows. Heavenly Father knows everything.

Heavenly Father placed Joseph Smith, BY, JT ,WW,LS,JFS,HJG,GAS,DOM,JFS,HBL,SWK,ETB,HWH,GBH and Thomas S. Monson as Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He allowed them to be ordained and set apart in an unbroken chain of Prophets, Seers and Revelators.....and thats good enough for me.

I'll take three General Conference talks from Thomas S. Monson, Henry B. Eyhring and Dieter F. Uctdorf over all the conference talks given by then Presidents John Taylor, George Q. Cannon and Jospeh F. Smith combined.

I have no problem with evolution, with some added qualifiers. But please note, when the early Church changed doctrines, they lost the priesthood and apostatized. When the Church today changes doctrines, it's "continuing revelation." Is it fair that I gave up the false church I was in and repented of my dead works in that church, if the CoJCoLDS is acting no different than the early Church?

And I'll bet you a million dollars that if John Taylor and Brigham Young were posting on MADB they would agree with me.

Sure. Whatever.

[stn9]

"Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider Our Heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or his Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species of one family and Jesus Christ is also of our species."

Brigham Young;JD 4:217.

This second post answers the first. It's a key to understanding Brigham Young's "conflicting" statements.

[CMZ]

Interestingly, the same verse supports the idea that in the days of Adam, the Only Begotten Son was the Holy Ghost.

There's some who don't want to be reminded of that. But enough of that.

I think I count at least four different belief systems being conveyed in this thread.

[CMZ]

I'll take three General Conference talks from Thomas S. Monson, Henry B. Eyhring and Dieter F. Uctdorf over all the conference talks given by then Presidents John Taylor, George Q. Cannon and Jospeh F. Smith combined.

I'll take all of them and actually have read just about everything all six of them have said in General Conference. You should at least know how to spell their names. Even the German one.

[BCSpace]

Bottom line:

1. BY never taught Adam-God.

2. Our critics will never let go of it even when they know they are wrong, as long as they can get mileage.

Bottom line:

1. BY did teach Adam-God.

2. Our critics will never let go of it as long as Mormons are in denial.

Easily said but you have not shown it as I have.

[baddonkey]

I read a book that dealt with the Adam/God topic one time. It was called something like Adam: Who Was He, and was by Mark E. Petersen. In the book, he showed that Brigham Young's talk about it in the journal of discourses was actually misreported. It's a good book but its out of print now, I think.

[LDSMusic483]

Easily said but you have not shown it as I have.

In this thread no, but if you do a search of a couple of months ago or so, you will find where he unequivocally shows that BY DID teach it. That was the premise of Consig's entire thread, and I believe there was much more detail than you had...so in actuality, yes...he didn't show it as you have...he showed it better!

I read a book that dealt with the Adam/God topic one time. It was called something like Adam: Who Was He, and was by Mark E. Petersen. In the book, he showed that Brigham Young's talk about it in the journal of discourses was actually misreported. It's a good book but its out of print now, I think.

I believe this is the book you are referring to. Cheap too!

[zerinus]

Bottom line:

1. BY did teach Adam-God.

2. Our critics will never let go of it as long as Mormons are in denial.

The â??bottom lineâ? is that our critics will never â??let go of it,â? regardless of whether Mormons are â??in denialâ? or not.

Interestingly, the same verse supports the idea that in the days of Adam, the Only Begotten Son was the Holy Ghost.

That is absolute nonsense. It does no such thing. Here is the passage (emphasis added):

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.

Here the Holy Ghost is acting, or speaking on behalf of the Son, testifying that He is Who He is. The scripture begins by making a clear distinction between four different beings: The Holy Ghost, Adam, the Father, and the Son. Then the Spirit proceeds to speak on behalf of the Son, testifying thought the Spirit Who He is.

The strange thing about this particular straw-man is that it is based on the notion that there is only one God, and that when Brigham Young taught Adam was God, he could only have meant that Adam was Elohim.

It is strange because of all Christian religions in the world, the Mormons are the ones who should be least likely to agree with the unspoken premise that there is only one God.

Mormonism teaches that there is in fact only one God:

Moses 1

:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is

no God beside me,

and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

It helps to remember that it was Joseph Smith who controverted all of Christendom by assigning to Adam a high and holy calling over this world.

He sure does. Joseph Smith did not "assign" to Adam anything though; God did:

D&C 107

:

53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.

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

.

56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation.

57 These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time.

As I understand it, they are all "one" anyway, so one should be as good as another.

They're fungible, don't you know?

Then you understand wrong. Being â??oneâ? does not mean that we worship them all as one.

zerinus

[CMZ]

Here the Holy Ghost is acting, or speaking on behalf of the Son, testifying that He is Who He is. The scripture begins by making a clear distinction between four different beings: The Holy Ghost, Adam, the Father, and the Son. Then the Spirit proceeds to speak on behalf of the Son, testifying thought the Spirit Who He is.

And the only time that happens is during Adam's mortality?

[zerinus]

And the only time that happens is during Adam's mortality?

Not sure what you mean by that. Can you explain?

zerinus

[CMZ]

Just wondered if you're saying that the only instance that we know of where the Holy Ghost spoke as though he were the Only Begotten Son happened while Adam was in his mortality.

[zerinus]

Just wondered if you're saying that the only instance that we know of where the Holy Ghost spoke as though he were the Only Begotten Son happened while Adam was in his mortality.

I don't know how you could read that into what I had said.

zerinus

[consiglieri]

I think I count at least four different belief systems being conveyed in this thread.

And yet adherents to all four can legitimately call themselves faithful Latter-day Saints.

I think this says something about the popular notion that Mormons are group-thinkers.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I read a book that dealt with the Adam/God topic one time. It was called something like Adam: Who Was He, and was by Mark E. Petersen. In the book, he showed that Brigham Young's talk about it in the journal of discourses was actually misreported. It's a good book but its out of print now, I think.

As I recall, Elder Petersen (a very kind and courteous gentleman, by the way) wrote this book in which, lamentably, he erected the straw-man that Brigham Young taught Adam is Elohim, and then spent quite a number of pages showing this could not be the case.

As to whether he showed that Brigham Young's talk was misreported, I do not recall. But it is a difficult thing to show when we know that Brigham Young had every opportunity to review the talk prior to its publication, and even if an error had crept in, to correct the talk had it been misreported; and he chose not to do so.

Additionally, it is frequently represented that Brigham Young taught this theory on only the one occasion, when in actuality there are many, many quotes from Brigham Young in which he consistently teaches the same thing.

One would have to argue he was misreported in every instance and he chose to never set the record straight, in spite of the fact that his comments caused quite a stir of controversy and even contention during his presidency.

It therefore seems unlikely that Brigham Young was misreported, miscontrued or misunderstood.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

That is absolute nonsense. It does no such thing. Here is the passage (emphasis added):

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.

Here the Holy Ghost is acting, or speaking on behalf of the Son, testifying that He is Who He is. The scripture begins by making a clear distinction between four different beings: The Holy Ghost, Adam, the Father, and the Son. Then the Spirit proceeds to speak on behalf of the Son, testifying thought the Spirit Who He is.

You may be correct that this is absolute nonsense.

Nevertheless, perhaps we can agree that mine is the more straightforward reading of the text.

It does appear for all the world that the "Only Begotten of the Father" was functioning as the "Holy Ghost" in the days of Adam.

Obviously you will disagree.

But I am interested in your answer to whether there is any other occasion recorded in scripture where the Holy Ghost speaks in the first person for the Only Begotten, as if he were in fact the Only Begotten.

Or is it only in the days of Adam that we find such an occurrence?

I take it CMZ's question in that regard may mean that, should such an occurrence happen only during the days of Adam, it could be considered suggestive.

And why is it that the Holy Ghost claiming to be the Only Begotten is considered acceptable whereas Satan's doing the exact same thing is not? (Moses 1:19)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

Additionally, it is frequently represented that Brigham Young taught this theory on only the one occasion, when in actuality there are many, many quotes from Brigham Young in which he consistently teaches the same thing.

One would have to argue he was misreported in every instance and he chose to never set the record straight, in spite of the fact that his comments caused quite a stir of controversy and even contention during his presidency.

It therefore seems unlikely that Brigham Young was misreported, miscontrued or misunderstood.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Depends on your definition of "many," actually. I wouldn't say many, personally.

[consiglieri]

Depends on your definition of "many," actually. I wouldn't say many, personally.

Upwards of ten?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'd say under 10, as a guesstimate, and compared to how often he spoke of other things, it remains a relatively unspoken of element in Brigham's sermons taken as a whole, IMO.

[BCSpace]

I think I count at least four different belief systems being conveyed in this thread.

And yet adherents to all four can legitimately call themselves faithful Latter-day Saints.

Because each system is dealing with something that is non doctrinal.

[consiglieri]

I'd say under 10, as a guesstimate, and compared to how often he spoke of other things, it remains a relatively unspoken of element in Brigham's sermons taken as a whole, IMO.

I would tend to disagree. Brigham's teachings on this particular subject were frequent and extended over a period of many years, intruding into the most sacred elements of the temple endowment.

I would venture to say that this subject approached being a "gospel hobby" for Brigham Young.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Because each system is dealing with something that is non doctrinal.

Don't tell me that is the heavy hand of orthodoxy coming down.

I thought the gospel was restored to do away with that sort of thing.

I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.--Joseph Smith

All the Best!

--Consiglieri