Adam-god

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

I have much more reading to do, I'll grant you that, but through 1858 I see precious little. We'll see how the next 20 yrs go.

[BCSpace]

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.

It's simply the reality of what the Church defines as doctrine. You can't ask for such a definition and then, when it's provided, claim it doesn't exist and expect your criticisms to be taken seriously.

[consiglieri]

It's simply the reality of what the Church defines as doctrine. You can't ask for such a definition and then, when it's provided, claim it doesn't exist and expect your criticisms to be taken seriously.

I don't recall asking for any definitions of anything.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

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.

Not exactly; but I can point you to many scriptures that teach that the role of the Holy Ghost is to testify of the Father and the Sonâ??the Son always being Jesus Christâ??whether before or after His incarnation. I can turn that question around to you: â??Is any other occasion recorded in scripture where the â??Only Begotten of the Fatherâ?? was functioning as the â??Holy Ghostâ??â?? Perhaps a better way of interpreting that scripture is that there Jesus is testifying of Himself by the power of the Holy Ghost.

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

You tell me! You answer my question, and I will answer yours!

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.

I never figured out what CMZ meant. His response didnâ??t make any more sense to me than his original comment had done.

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)

Because the Holy Ghost never claimed to be the Only Begotten; while Satan (being a liar) falsely did.

zerinus

[BCSpace]

It's simply the reality of what the Church defines as doctrine. You can't ask for such a definition and then, when it's provided, claim it doesn't exist and expect your criticisms to be taken seriously.

I don't recall asking for any definitions of anything.

You've never complained about receiving different answers to the same doctrinal question? Give me a break!

[jo1952]

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

It is refreshingly reassuring to me the Church allows members to think on their own. Outsiders accuse members of the Church of not being allowed to think on their own. Members are also accused of burying their heads in the sand. We see here that they are not.

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

I think so as well. One of the things it says is it is not necessary for them to go out and start their own new denominational church as is done in the Protestant faiths whenever there is a point they don't all agree on.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Best to you, too!

jo

[Dan Urtnowski]

"I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality" (p. 7)

- Bruce R McConkie

The Letter

It seems clear that Brigham Young did teach false doctrine.

[CMZ]

I never figured out what CMZ meant. His response didn't make any more sense to me than his original comment had done.

What I'm asking is: do we know of times since Adam's death when the Holy Ghost said to someone: "I am the Only Begotten"?

[CMZ]

It seems clear that Brigham Young did teach false doctrine.

I'm thinking of a talk now by McConkie where he said something like, "If Brigham Young, who is one of the greatest of the prophets, taught something that is not in accord with the scriptures then it is the scriptures that prevail. To me the emphasis is on the word "if." I believe even McConkie himself may have not revealed the full extent of his knowledge on the matter. What I think dismayed Elder McConkie was the apostate's line of thinking, "Brigham Young taught that Adam is God; the current church doesn't teach that Adam is God, therefore I need to leave the Church and join a fundamentalist group." Remember that the first principle of the gospel is to know for a certainty the character of God. When you have wrong ideas about who he is it can also lead to wrong actions.

[jo1952]

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

Through the Bible we learn prophets have taught topics which are not understood by the people. There is great disparity on the interpretation of Biblical scripture yet today. The youngest number of years old the Bible is believed to be, is approximately 8,000 years (5,820 since the first writings in the OT plus 2008 since the birth of Christ, rounded up). Thus for a minimum of approximately 8,000 years interpretational arguments have existed.

It is generally accepted in Christendom, the people are basically given information they are ready to hear and absorb. However, even when given instruction and information, they can still "not get it". After the minimum of 8,000 years, the Jewish still do not recognize Jesus as their Savior.

I apply this type of logic to circumstances which are in great question such as what exactly Brigham Young may have said or what he may have meant by what he said (same for other latter day prophets). If what BY was talking about hasn't been thoroughly understood yet, that does not mean it is untrue. When discussing reasons why he may or may not have desired to correct anything he said, I can comfortably apply this method of debate and reasoning to the discussion.

Just as Biblical interpretation does not dissuade Christians to give up their belief in Christ; neither do such interpretational problems dissuade me from believing the Church is true.

Also, at such time as additional information is revealed to a latter day prophet and this subject is officially added to scriptural revelation, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Thanks,

jo

[erichard]

Moses 5:9 contradicts the idea that Adam/Michael was/is the Holy Ghost.

Oh hello,

Not if the Holy Ghost is like an office. The Lord can also fulfill the work of the Holy Ghost, as he is the head.

Richard

[BCSpace]

Moses 5:9 contradicts the idea that Adam/Michael was/is the Holy Ghost.

Oh hello,

Not if the Holy Ghost is like an office. The Lord can also fulfill the work of the Holy Ghost, as he is the head.

As indeed this is the case. His office is described in that self same verse. He is bearing record of the Son by bring the message from the Son.

[erichard]

I agree. Here's how i understand it:

...

Here is the 2BC version (you can double check me):

Eloheim (God and Father of Michael, or alternately the Council of the Gods)

||

JEHOVAH (Only Begotten Son of a previous Jehovah -- and the Savior of Michael)

||

Michael (Father of our Spirits-- an "Abraham" from the previous earth.)

|

Jesus Christ (Only Begotten Son of JEHOVAH)

President Young was incorrect in teaching Jesus was the physical son of Michael. However, Jesus was the firstborn spirit child of Michael.

We are the seed of Michael and none of us, Consig included I am convinced, will ever become the full seed of Jehovah and become Saviors of worlds. Jesus is the only one begotten by Jehovah on this earth, and its only Savior.

But we can become Michaels like our Father and God, beget spirit children and and eventually become Adams and Eves on future worlds.

So again: Adam will become an Eloheim in his next estate. Jesus will become Jehovah. And the faithful like Abraham will become Michaels.

So the Adam-God doctrine is a fuller understanding of the New Testament "Joint-heirs with Christ" doctrine.

Richard

[erichard]

The Letter

It seems clear that Brigham Young did teach false doctrine.

Greetings Dan,

BY taught false doctrine because BRM said he taught false doctrine?

Wait a minute, BRM was an apostle, but BY was the President of the church-- the ordained revelator for the church, and a close and always faithful friend of the Prophet Joseph. I don't think BRM remotely has the right to set BY in order.

If President Young was wrong in his Adam-God teachings, then that means later church Presidents can also be wrong in their teachings: in fact, they can be wrong about President Young being wrong.

The only honest solution is to admit that no one in the church-- not even the church President-- is ever above reproach and above failing the church. D&C 107:81-84 and JST Mark 9:40-48 clearly show this, and they are scripture.

Richard

[Olavarria]

Hijole, why did I even start this thread?

Maybe I should start a thread about feeding the homeless or home teaching.

[zerinus]

What I'm asking is: do we know of times since Adam's death when the Holy Ghost said to someone: "I am the Only Begotten"?

I don't know of any time when the Holy Ghost has said to anyone "I am the Only Begotten". That title is reserved exclusively for the one and only Son of God, who is Jesus Christ, who has been declared to be such from before the "foundation of the world" (D&C 29:46; Moses 5:57). It does not, and never has been applied to anyone else, including the Holy Ghost.

zerinus

[consiglieri]

I have much more reading to do, I'll grant you that, but through 1858 I see precious little. We'll see how the next 20 yrs go.

Good morning, Loap! Just so I am clear, I am not saying that all of Brigham Young's relevant utterances are found in the Journal of Discourses. Many of them are found in other sources.

[consiglieri]

You've never complained about receiving different answers to the same doctrinal question? Give me a break!

Good morning, BCSpace!

I was surprised to read your post this morning.

First, you had said that I could not ask for a definition of doctrine and then complain when it was provided.

I said I did not recall having asked for a definition of anything.

You respond by shifting the question, and suggest that I have "complained about receiving different answers to the same doctrinal question."

First, I take it we agree that my recollection was correct that I had not asked for a definition of anything.

Second, I similarly cannot recall ever having complained about receiving different answers to the same doctrinal question.

I did not know I was perceived as such a doctrinal martinet.

I would respectfully request a call for references on your claim that I have complained about receiving different answers to the same doctrinal question.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

It is refreshingly reassuring to me the Church allows members to think on their own. Outsiders accuse members of the Church of not being allowed to think on their own. Members are also accused of burying their heads in the sand. We see here that they are not.I think so as well. One of the things it says is it is not necessary for them to go out and start their own new denominational church as is done in the Protestant faiths whenever there is a point they don't all agree on.Best to you, too!jo

Hi, Jo!

And welcome.

I am glad to see we both can appreciate the strength of LDS being able to think different things about different gospel subjects, such as this; and how strangely different the reality is from what some critics say.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The LetterIt seems clear that Brigham Young did teach false doctrine.

It seems clear that (Bruce R. McConkie believed) Brigham Young did teach false doctrine.

And thank you for bringing up that letter, because it raises some interesting questions. I will quote a bit from it below:

Now may I say something for your guidance and enlightenment. If what I am about to say should be taken out of context and published in Dialogue or elsewhere, it would give an entirely erroneous impression and would not properly present the facts. As it happens, I am a great admirer of Brigham Young and a great believer in his doctrinal presentations. He was called of God.

Mr. Eugene England

February 19, 1981

Page 6

He was guided by the Holy Spirit in his teachings in general. He was a mighty prophet. He led Israel the way the Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation laid by the Prophet Joseph. He completed his work and has come on to eternal exaltation.

Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.

Yes, Brigham Young did say some things about God progressing in knowledge and understanding, but again, be it known, that Brigham Young taught, emphatically and plainly, that God knows all things and has all power meaning in the infinite, eternal and ultimate and absolute sense of the word. Again, the issue is, which Brigham Young shall we believe and the answer is: We will take the one whose statements accord with what God has revealed in the Standard Works.

I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved. I think you can also give me credit for knowing what Brigham Young said about God progressing. And again, that is something he will have to account for. As for me and my house, we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the same man and come up with those that accord with

Mr. Eugene England

February 19, 1981

Page 7

what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation.

This is the letter where Bruce R. McConkie says he knows what Brigham Young taught about Adam-God, and that Brigham Young did, in fact, teach all the things that "the cultists" ascribe to him; i.e., the Adam-God Theory; but that Brigham Young was simply wrong about this.

It is a remarkable admission by Bruce R. McConkie, who publicly stated on numerous occasions something different; that Brigham Young was misunderstood and misinterpreted.

This raises an interesting issue, however, for those (such as Elden Watson and his acolytes) who continue to try to parse Brigham Young's words in such a way as to make them fit current Mormon Doctrine; because in doing so they are contradicting Bruce R. McConkie, who here says that Brigham Young was "wrong" and that he actually did say the things the "cultists" ascribe to him.

So which is it? Was Bruce R. McConkie correct on this, or is Elden Watson?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I don't know of any time when the Holy Ghost has said to anyone "I am the Only Begotten". That title is reserved exclusively for the one and only Son of God, who is Jesus Christ, who has been declared to be such from before the "foundation of the world" (D&C 29:46; Moses 5:57). It does not, and never has been applied to anyone else, including the Holy Ghost.

zerinus

I, too, don't know of any time when the Holy Ghost has said to anyone, "I am the Only Begotten."

Except for Moses 5:9, of course.

Now, some are saying that the Holy Ghost was simply "bearing record of the Son" when he did this. But can we not agree this is a somewhat unusual way to go about it? And one that is bound to cause confusion to Adam and anybody else who reads the record?

If the Holy Ghost is bearing record of the Son, why does the Holy Ghost not simply refer to the Son in the third person; i.e., "The Son is the Only Begotten"?

Most Mormons have born record of the Son while bearing their testimonies. I have been a member for 30-years and I do not recall any of the hundreds of Mormons I have heard bear record of the Son state, "I am the Only Begotten." That would be quite confusing, indeed.

It would seem that, if your interpretation of Moses 5:9 is correct, God has indeed become the author of confusion.

Now, back to the question first posed by CMZ.

If the Only Begotten was indeed fulfilling the function of the Holy Ghost while Adam was in mortality, which is the plain reading of the text, there is likely a reason for it.

And the reason would likely be that the God who has subsequently (and even today) served in the office of the Holy Ghost was not able to fill that office while Adam was in mortality.

And the reason the current Holy Ghost was not able to be the Holy Ghost while Adam was in mortality could be because he was at the time busy filling another assignment; that assignment involving being tabernacled in a body of flesh and bone, and later a body of flesh and blood.

I hope this makes the nature of CMZ's question a little clearer.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

Good morning, Loap! Just so I am clear, I am not saying that all of Brigham Young's relevant utterances are found in the Journal of Discourses. Many of them are found in other sources.

My reading is not confined to JD, my friend. You ought to know that.

[consiglieri]

My reading is not confined to JD, my friend. You ought to know that.

I am not as well acquainted with you, my friend, as I should like to be.

But then, maybe that's because you have never invited me out to dinner!

One of my recent posts on this thread raised issues so juicy I decided to start another thread about it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Sargon]

Consig,

I think it was LDSmusic earlier in this thread who referred to a different thread in which you expounded on your views and argumentation. Could you link us to that thread?

Thanks.

Sargon

[stn9]

I, too, don't know of any time when the Holy Ghost has said to anyone, "I am the Only Begotten."

Perhaps not, but it is not without parallel:

The Son may speak to man in his own name, and then, to dramatize and teach more effectively and powerfully whatever is involved, he may begin to speak in his Father's name, without so much as a break in thought presentation. He begins section 29 in the Doctrine and Covenants by saying "Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I Am, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins," and without hesitation or explanation he soon assumes the voice of the Father, saying, "I the Lord God" shall "send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son." (D&C 29:1, 42-43.) In such a context the meaning is clear; Christ is choosing to speak in the first person as though he were the Father. [bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.65]

[consiglieri]

Consig,

I think it was LDSmusic earlier in this thread who referred to a different thread in which you expounded on your views and argumentation. Could you link us to that thread?

Thanks.

Sargon

Here are a couple of threads that I started.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...ory+consiglieri

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...ory+consiglieri

I do wish to make it clear, however, that my position has been that Brigham Young did teach the Adam-God Theory. In this I agree with Bruce R. McConkie. Well, at least one Bruce R. McConkie.

I have not generally tried to argue that Brigham Young was correct in what he taught, but only that it is correct that he taught it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri