Did Brigham Young Teach the Adam-God Theory?

[lukas_s]

Yes it is an interesting topic and I doubt that we will solve the dilema of conflicting opinions. For one thing Brother Brigham is not here to ask what he really said or meant. Perhaps with some study, meditation and patience we can come to a resolution that will be personally acceptable to each of us without throwing BY or any one else under the bus.

I don't understand what this business about "throwing BY or anyone else under the bus" is about. If BY was, indeed, teaching false doctrine, it is our duty, as per the Scriptures, to make that known. His discourses and various journal entries by members, the Lecture at the Veil, as well as the statements of some other leaders seem to prove that he was teaching false doctrine. I don't see pointing this out as throwing anybody under the bus. Since the Church was restored we have carried the attitude that our leaders are fallible, that men do not always serve in the capacity of Prophet, and because of this can make false statements. I am completely within the bounds of the oaths I took at the Temple to say that BY taught false doctrine; that's not an issue. I'm not speaking ill of the Lord's Anointed, I'm not apostatizing, and I'm not spewing anti-Mormon rhetoric. He was a man, he was allowed his mistakes. I sincerely believe he was mistaken, but I'm willing to look at the issue again, trying to rid myself of my preconceptions and bias, to see if perhaps there is no issue with what he taught.

[wes]

I don't understand what this business about "throwing BY or anyone else under the bus" is about. If BY was, indeed, teaching false doctrine, it is our duty, as per the Scriptures, to make that known. His discourses and various journal entries by members, the Lecture at the Veil, as well as the statements of some other leaders seem to prove that he was teaching false doctrine. I don't see pointing this out as throwing anybody under the bus. Since the Church was restored we have carried the attitude that our leaders are fallible, that men do not always serve in the capacity of Prophet, and because of this can make false statements. I am completely within the bounds of the oaths I took at the Temple to say that BY taught false doctrine; that's not an issue. I'm not speaking ill of the Lord's Anointed, I'm not apostatizing, and I'm not spewing anti-Mormon rhetoric. He was a man, he was allowed his mistakes. I sincerely believe he was mistaken, but I'm willing to look at the issue again, trying to rid myself of my preconceptions and bias, to see if perhaps there is no issue with what he taught.

I appreciate your words, lukas_s. One of my biggest issues with the CoJCoLDS is that there have been numerous questionable statements made by various LDS leaders that have never been officially renounced.

[ryanelwood]

I think it is clear by the many quotes that Brigham Young taught that Adam came to earth with one of his wives, Eve, to populate the planet, that Young taught Adam is our God, the father of our spirits, and that Adam is the father of Jesus Christ. Contemporary Mormons knew it. During a theology class in 1878 at Brigham Young Academy, Karl Maeser was asked, "If Adam was God, who is it that had the power to cast him out from the garden?" Maeser answered, "President Young has taught us that Adam was our father," in Moses and Gen. 1 "there is a difference made between the term signifying God and the Godhead...When God came upon the earth he confided all the powers and keys upon his son Jesus Christ." He goes on to say that Christ was the God of Old Testament because the keys were given to him. In March of 1879, he was asked the same question to which he answered, "Adam left the heavens and came upon the earth, complied with the first law and took upon him a mortal being to give his children a chance. When he left, he left his authority, also. Just as in a meeting a chairman calls another to take the chair for a little time." At the end of his answer to a question about why Jesus is called the Son of Man, he said, "Why I class God and Adam together does not belong to the question. That involved some other doctrine which we will not touch upon now. Jesus Christ was the first born and hence, he was preeminently the Son of Adam; which was the first man and hence was called 'Man.'" Then in September of 1879, Maeser is asked, "In verse 18 [of Saint John] it says, 'No man has seen god at any time except the Son of God.'" Maeser answered, "We read in the Old Testament that God walked in the garden and spoke to Moses...This was the same personage who afterward appeared on earth in the name of Jesus Christ...God had chosen Jesus Christ to perform this great mission on earth before He came down here." Therefore, according to Maeser it must have been Jesus who cast God/Adam, his father, out of the Garden. Maeser of course got these ideas that he calls "doctrine" from Brigham Young. These students knew very well that Young taught Adam is God our Heavenly Father.

Yes Brigham Young taught the Adam God doctrine/theory. It is not really debatable. The only reason anyone would argue that he did not is for whatever reason some Mormons find it embarrassing since it conflicts with modern Mormonism and therefore use mental gymnastics to save Young from teaching it (this is what J. Fielding Smith and Watson have done). If Young was Jehovah Witness and said all the things that have been quoted here, not one Mormon would be arguing against what Young clearly taught it. He taught it, get over it already.

[mpschmitt]

This response was hastily assembled, so please be merciful to me

If there are any faults, verily the are the faults of a tired man...

I agree with much of what you have to say. I still think it an open question, as other posters have noted, whether Brigham Young "erred in doctrine." Once again this inserts into the issue a subjective value judgment on what is true and what is not; or as Her Amun has narrowed the issue; what is doctrine and what is not.

I think the Adam-God teaching of Brigham Young is such a hot button because it divests Mormons of most of their handy fail-safe arguments for such prophetic pronouncements.

1. One of the first arguments frequently heard by Mormons when presented with a teaching of a church leader that does not comport with their current understanding is to say that it was not taught in the church, or not taught in conference.

Obviously, Brigham Young did teach this in church, and did teach it at conference, so that objection goes by the wayside.

2. A second argument frequently encountered by Mormons is that the speaker was not "the prophet" when he made the pronouncement; he was "only" an apostle or some other office.

Once again, that argument doesn't cut it here because Brigham Young was "the prophet" of the LDS Church when he made all of these statements.

And so this issue forces Mormons to squarely engage the question of what to make of a situation where one prophet teaches something that is contradicted by another prophet.

(Clearly this is a difficult issue to engage for many Mormons, who will do whatever is necessary to avoid the issue.)

The seemingly knee-jerk reaction is to say that one prophet or the other was "wrong," or "erred in doctrine," and therefore is a "false prophet."

Once that conclusion is reached, it is a simple matter to call into question everything that any prophet has ever said about any subject.

But I think this is probably throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I've come to some satisfying conclusions on this matter myself, but I'll spare you those details, as I regard some of them very sacred and personal. One thing that is clear is that if you are going to adopt the belief that the Adam to which Brigham was referring was the same Adam that we know to be Michael, then Brigham was confused about his own doctrine. In the very same sermon where Brigham declares Adam to be our God, he also declares:

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.

So he clearly did not mean to suggest that the Adam who was our first Father in the flesh was the same being as Eloheim, our Father. Paul hints in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 that the name Adam may in certain cases be used as a title, which compounds the problem of understanding Brigham's meaning.

Consider also how Brigham positions Adam to God in this passage from another sermon:

For example, I will refer to your crossing the plains. How could youin any other way have known the hardships incident to such a journey? Anddo you not feel ashamed for getting angry at your cattle, or for lettingpassion arise in your bosoms? Suppose you were rolling in wealth, and perfectlyat your ease, with an abundance around you; you might have remained in thatcondition until Doomsday, and never could have advanced in the school ofintelligence any more than Adam could have known about the works of God,in the great design of the creation, without first being made acquaintedwith the opposite?

Consider also this language from another sermon by Brigham:

Adam was the first personage placed on the earth, in the Garden of Eden, and having transgressed, and having been cast out of the Garden of Eden, and having fulfilled a long probation, amounting to almost a thousand years, he concluded to gather together his children, which he did three years previously to his death.

Consider also where Orson Pratt places Adam in relation to Jesus Christ by quoting this from the doctrine and covenants in another sermon:

And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the Prince, the Archangel. And the Lord administered comfort to 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 for ever. 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 whatever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation...[then Orson declares a few paragraphs later] The Ancient of Days delivers up the kingdom, thus completed, to the Son of Man, whose dominion becomes so great that all peoples, nations and languages serve him and his dominion is everlasting and shall have no end...How great and glorious will be that period when Jesus will come in the clouds of heaven! He makes this preparation beforehand, so that there may be a people ready to receive him. People of mortality, as well as immortal beings, all knowing their positions, will form the grand Council, and they will be organized ready to receive Jesus when he comes to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords upon this earth. http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_18/JD18-335.html

Let us remember the core teaching of the Bible in relation to this verse where Jesus teaches:

"My Father is greater than I" (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/14/28#28)

The Adam-God theory as it is called has been declared to not be binding on the Saints. We can leave it well enough alone, or take it up as a matter of solemn prayer and be enlightened in ways that truly satisfy by the Holy Ghost on the subject.

Here is a quote where Brigham clearly distinguishes between Adam and Heavenly Father:

The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, "we are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. [JD 13:311-312, April 17, 1870]

Another quote from Wilford Woodruff echoes this:

Adam and Eve came to this world to perform exactly the part that they acted in the garden of Eden; and I will say, they were ordained of God to do what they did, and it was therefore expected that they would eat of the forbidden fruit in order that man might know both good and evil by passing through this school of experience which this life affords us. That is all I want to say about Father Adam and Mother Eve. Adam fell that man might be, and men are that they might have joy; and some have found fault with that. It has been said that God commanded Adam to multiply and replenish the earth; and it has been said that Adam was not under the necessity of falling in order to multiply and replenish the earth, but you will understand that the woman was deceived and not the man; and according to the justice of God she would have been cast out into the lowly and dreary world alone, and thus the first great command could not have been complied with unless Adam had partaken of the forbidden fruit. We acknowledge that through Adam all have died, that death through the fall must pass upon the whole human family, also upon the beasts of the field, the fishes of the sea and the fowls of the air and all the works of God, as far as this earth is concerned. It is a law that is unchangeable and irrevocable. It is true a few have been translated, and there will be living upon the earth thousands and millions of people when the Messiah comes in power and great glory to reward every man according to the deeds done in the body, who will be changed in the twinkling of an eye, from mortality to immortality. Nevertheless they must pass through the ordeal of death involved in the change that will come upon them. http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_23/JD23-124.html

More than anything else, I think this episode is instructive in that it highlights the complete dependency that many Mormons have on teachings of the prophets.

In spite of the fact that the prophets have consistently counseled members to weigh their words against the standard works and the confirmation of the Holy Ghost, I think most Mormons reveal themselves as unwilling or unable to do so, and hence put absolute confidence in anything the prophet says, just because he says it.

This is all well and good, and works extremely well, when we deal with prophetic utterances of the last 100-years after Mormon Doctrine was systemitized and correlated; after which prophets say nothing other than what has become standardized "Mormon Doctrine."

Here are a few of my favorite quotes on that subject:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1941], 135).

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. if Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, pp.203-04).

Gordon B. Hinckley echoed this teaching:

When all is said and done, the test of the doctrine lies in the standard works of the Church. These have been accepted in conference and assembled as our doctrinal standards." (Gordon B. Hinckley, General Authority Training Meeting, October 1, 1996, in Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p. 574)

WIlford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith wrote in a personal letter on the subject of the Adam-God theory:

President Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church.

(Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith, letter to A. Saxey, 7 January 1897, Family and Church History Department Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

This seems to echo the sentiments of Doctrine and Covenants 107 (particularly verses 21-29):

21 Of necessity there are presidents, or presiding officers growing out of, or appointed of or from among those who are ordained to the several offices in these two priesthoods.

22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.

23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

25 The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

26 And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.

27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—

28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—

29 Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were arighteous and holy men.

There is a process through which official doctrine and teaching of the Church proceeds. The Adam-God theory (which I regard to be the interpretations of men applied to Brigham's teaching), did not pass through this process.

This quote below alludes somewhat to my own personal love and feeling for Adam as my Father (in the sense of being the first of my earthly ancestors and the great Patriarch of the human race):

The kingdom of God is to roll forth, and a certain person is to come, accompanied by a great host; the name of this person is the Ancient of Days. And who are they that compose the mighty host? Are they immortal beings? Doubtless most of them will be immortal Saints, but there may be some mortals among them. The being called the Ancient of Days will not be a mortal person, his glory is too great, he has passed through his mortality, and he will have the oversight of this numerous host, at least a hundred million of people.

Who would be the most likely person to fill this important position? He is called the Ancient of Days. Can you tell me, who the most ancient person is that lived on the earth, during the most ancient days? All, all will acknowledge that it is Adam. Inasmuch as he has proven himself a righteous man, it is right and proper that he should by divine appointment, have dominion over the righteous of his posterity, who should, exist from his day, down to that period, when he comes in his glory; and this ten thousand times ten thousand spoken of will be the faithful of his own posterity. They shall stand before him, and certain books are then to be opened. If we understand the nature of those records, we should doubtless find much written concerning kingdoms, nations and individuals. They are the records which are kept in heaven, in which all things pertaining to the peoples of the earth are recorded. Or, as the Book of Mormon expresses it, giving the language of the Savior when on this American continent, that "all things are written by the Father;" that is, by his authority, by his direction are all things written. The records of the nations-their rise and decadence, with everything pertaining to them, in a national capacity, will be written. Then there will be the records of families and of individuals, even of all people and tongues of the earth. The books will be opened, and the judgment will sit. What judgment? Not the final judgment, because that is to take place more than a thousand years after this. This judgment refers to the nations that will then exist, and it is out of these records and by this judgment will they be judged. The calamities spoken of will take place in fulfillment of the Scriptures, and of the great purposes of Jehovah.

I believe that Adam presides over the human family as any great-great(add greats here) grandfather holding the priesthood would. He loves every one of his posterity with a love that parallels the love that Our Heavenly Father has for us. I love him for the role that he played in the creation and peopling of the earth and I revere him for his integrity and goodness. I feel the same for our Mother Eve. This reverence I feel for them however, in no way diminishes the love and reverence I feel for my Savior and my Father in Heaven. When I put Brigham's comments in that context. His statements don't seem so outlandish to me and become much more consistent with one another.

It does not work so well, however, when dealing with some prophetic utterances before that period, when Mormon Doctrine was not standardized, and when there were still new and exciting things that could be discovered by pondering the scriptures and searching out the hidden mysteries of God through the revelatory power of the Holy Ghost.

Ironically, what Brigham Young comes under condemnation for in this regard is acting like a prophet!

Current prophets do not act so much like prophets as like businessmen who tow the company line.

I couldn't disagree more with that statement, but I haven't much time to elaborate beyond my personal witness that the Lord calls men and prepares them in every part of this dispensation of the Gospel and grants them the unique gifts and talents they will need for that generation. Joseph Smith wasn't Brigham Young, Brigham wasn't Joseph F. Smith, Gordon B. Hinckley wasn't Brigham or Joseph F. or Joseph But I have never seen anything in any of these men to make me think they were anything but Prophet's seers and revelators. They served the need the Lord had for the people at that time. And Thomas S. Monson is doing the same now.

Here is an interesting essay on the subject:

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

[Notquitewetyet]

One thing that is clear is that if you are going to adopt the belief that the Adam to which Brigham was referring was the same Adam that we know to be Michael, then Brigham was confused about his own doctrine. In the very same sermon where Brigham declares Adam to be our God, he also declares:

So he clearly did not mean to suggest that the Adam who was our first Father in the flesh was the same being as Eloheim, our Father. Paul hints in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 that the name Adam may in certain cases be used as a title, which compounds the problem of understanding Brigham's meaning.

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

CRITICS, this is not for you.

This only occurs if you believe that Jesus is Yahweh/Yahovah. I believe the Adam-God doctrine (fully, in the sense like those who love Joseph Smith's teachings on the fulness of the Gospel do) and I recognize Michael as my God and Father. I recognize Yahovah as the Savior of Michael, and that Jesus Christ will in the future/is in a sense now a Yahovah to us. Elden Watson's ideas do establish that Michael isn't Eloheim, but those I know who like-minded who do believe in Brigham Young's teachings, don't believe Michael is Eloheim yet, or that Eloheim is the Father of Michael's spirit/ Our Heavenly Grandfather. Eloheim-Yahovah-Michael = the celestial trinity Michael-Jesus Christ-Holy Ghost (JS?) = our current, terrestrial/telestial/future celestial trinity

[lukas_s]

I appreciate your words, lukas_s. One of my biggest issues with the CoJCoLDS is that there have been numerous questionable statements made by various LDS leaders that have never been officially renounced.

I hope you didn't take my words to mean something that I didn't intend for them to mean. I still believe BY was a Prophet. He may have taught false doctrine, but I can look past that. There's biblical precedence for Prophets teaching falsehoods and lying, anyway.

CRITICS, this is not for you.This only occurs if you believe that Jesus is Yahweh/Yahovah. I believe the Adam-God doctrine (fully, in the sense like those who love Joseph Smith's teachings on the fulness of the Gospel do) and I recognize Michael as my God and Father. I recognize Yahovah as the Savior of Michael, and that Jesus Christ will in the future/is in a sense now a Yahovah to us. Elden Watson's ideas do establish that Michael isn't Eloheim, but those I know who like-minded who do believe in Brigham Young's teachings, don't believe Michael is Eloheim yet, or that Eloheim is the Father of Michael's spirit/ Our Heavenly Grandfather. Eloheim-Yahovah-Michael = the celestial trinity Michael-Jesus Christ-Holy Ghost (JS?) = our current, terrestrial/telestial/future celestial trinity

Where is this taught in any of our Standard Works, and why isn't it taught today?

[Gordon]

I, personally, believe BY taught such a doctrine...and I do not see anything wrong with this doctrine either.

[Notquitewetyet]

Where is this taught in any of our Standard Works, and why isn't it taught today?

Those who have ears to hear, hear!Zechariah 3:2"And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?"Jude 1:9"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."Hmm, Michael and the LORD said the same thing? Not the same situation, but hmm?And this is interesting, not my work, but someone from the Adam-God yahoo group posted this:

How about this for a possible Adam God reference? I was reading inJudges, chapter 9, about the sons of Gideon. One of them, Abimelech,was very wicked. He slew the rest of his brothers (70 of them) savethe youngest one, Jotham, who escaped by hiding. This, Abimelech didto secure kingship for himself. Later, Jotham shouts the followingparable from the top of mount Gerizim.

8 The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and theysaid unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.

9 But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness,wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted overthe trees?

10 And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us.

11 But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, andmy good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?

12 Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us.

13 And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheerethGod and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?

14 Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.

In this parable the trees first ask the most noble and royal trees tobe their king, but they refuse. So they ask a weed to be their kinginstead. Well, who could be a more noble or royal king than God? Ithink each of the trees could represent a member of the God head. Theolive tree represents the Holy Spirit â?? olive oil is a source of lightand nourishment, the 10 virgins, etc. The vine represents the Son â??the true vine, he trod the wine press alone, etc. Then the fig mustrepresent the Father. The symbolism of the olive and the vine aremuch more established in the scriptures than the fig, but I do knowthat throughout history the fig has been seen as a symbol of fertilityâ?? and therefore parenthood. Our first parents wore aprons of figleaves when they discovered their nakedness. Furthermore, I thinkthis adds a nice layer of symbolism to Jesusâ?? cursing of the barrenfig tree (Matt 21). In 1Tim2 we read about Adam and Eve being savedin childbearing â?? in bearing fruit. We also wear fig leaves in thetemple like Adam and Eve, and one day Jesus may â??check behind the figleavesâ?? to see if we have born any fruit â?? to see if we are worthy ofan eternal increase as our Father is. Those who are not worthy willbecome 'withered behind the leaves' and never bear fruit again.Taking the fig as a symbol of Father and the vine as the Son also addssome additional meaning to Micah 4:4 in connection with Jeremiah31:34. Micah 4:4 - But they shall sit every man under his vine andunder his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth ofthe LORD of hosts hath spoken it. Jeremiah 31:34 - And they shallteach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother,saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least ofthem unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD.

.... and why isn't it taught today?

And why isn't plural marriage as essential for exaltation taught today? And why isn't the United Order and Gathering to Zion taught today? And why isn't rebaptism for health and rededication taught today? And why isn't.....Ahh, I think you get the idea.

[wes]

I hope you didn't take my words to mean something that I didn't intend for them to mean. I still believe BY was a Prophet. He may have taught false doctrine, but I can look past that.

No, I did not misunderstand you. I realize that you still believe BY was a prophet. I was just appreciative of your willingness to acknowledge that the responsible thing for Mormons to do is address the false doctrine he preached.

[lukas_s]

Those who have ears to hear, hear!Zechariah 3:2"And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?"Jude 1:9"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."Hmm, Michael and the LORD said the same thing? Not the same situation, but hmm?And this is interesting, not my work, but someone from the Adam-God yahoo group posted this:And why isn't plural marriage as essential for exaltation taught today? And why isn't the United Order and Gathering to Zion taught today? And why isn't rebaptism for health and rededication taught today? And why isn't.....Ahh, I think you get the idea.

I really don't see the connection between Zec 3:2 and Jude 1:9. So because Michael rebukes Satan just as the Lord rebukes Satan, somehow that makes Michael our Father? Jesus rebuked Satan countless times, yet you're not calling Jesus the Father. Moses rebuked him, as did Abraham. Why not them? Michael rebukes Satan with the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew text, I fail to see how Michael is the Father of our spirits. Micheal did was any faithful person would have done: invoked the Name of Deity to cast out the Accuser.

[Notquitewetyet]

I really don't see the connection between Zec 3:2 and Jude 1:9. So because Michael rebukes Satan just as the Lord rebukes Satan, somehow that makes Michael our Father? Jesus rebuked Satan countless times, yet you're not calling Jesus the Father. Moses rebuked him, as did Abraham. Why not them? Michael rebukes Satan with the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew text, I fail to see how Michael is the Father of our spirits. Micheal did was any faithful person would have done: invoked the Name of Deity to cast out the Accuser.

I agree, it's not the greatest proof text. But when you accept Brigham Young as Joseph's right hand man, in the same way that Joseph was the Father's right hand man, it's such a beautiful realization that Our Father isn't distant, but set foot on this planet himself, and was the Father of Jesus Christ. We have a God who brought us into this world, a God who saved us, and a God who delivered the Gospel to us in this last dispensation.

[lukas_s]

And why isn't plural marriage as essential for exaltation taught today? And why isn't the United Order and Gathering to Zion taught today? And why isn't rebaptism for health and rededication taught today? And why isn't.....Ahh, I think you get the idea.

So if the Church is in such a fallen state, not teaching doctrines that you seem to believe were just shelved away without the Lord's consent, why are you a member? Plural marriage was ended through the Lord's response to the turmoil facing the territory of Utah, and the Saints, in 1890. If you paid attention in Seminary you would see what an utter failure the United Order was, and why it was stopped. Gathering to Zion is still taught- we are to be a Zion people wherever we are. A literal gathering is no longer necessary because the word of the Lord can go forth from wherever the Brethren are through the technology of this day. Re-baptism for health and re-dedication was never doctrinal: there isn't one bit of doctrine concerning it in any of the Standard Works. I have no problem with the idea, but it was never doctrine.

[lukas_s]

I agree, it's not the greatest proof text. But when you accept Brigham Young as Joseph's right hand man, in the same way that Joseph was the Father's right hand man, it's such a beautiful realization that Our Father isn't distant, but set foot on this planet himself, and was the Father of Jesus Christ. We have a God who brought us into this world, a God who saved us, and a God who delivered the Gospel to us in this last dispensation.

Or I can continue to believe what Joseph taught, namely that Adam was Michael in the pre-existence, and that God the Father was once a man, many, many eons ago; who through the power of the Holy Ghost caused Mary to become a pure vessel, literally the Mother of God. Our Father isn't distant, and never has been. He has revealed Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ. He has never revealed Himself as Adam. I think you're grasping at straws, especially considering the fact that there is no evidence to such malarky in the Standard Works. I can find more reference to our Mother than to this Adam-God hullaballoo.

[Notquitewetyet]

So if the Church is in such a fallen state, not teaching doctrines that you seem to believe were just shelved away without the Lord's consent, why are you a member? Plural marriage was ended through the Lord's response to the turmoil facing the territory of Utah, and the Saints, in 1890. If you paid attention in Seminary you would see what an utter failure the United Order was, and why it was stopped. Gathering to Zion is still taught- we are to be a Zion people wherever we are. A literal gathering is no longer necessary because the word of the Lord can go forth from wherever the Brethren are through the technology of this day. Re-baptism for health and re-dedication was never doctrinal: there isn't one bit of doctrine concerning it in any of the Standard Works. I have no problem with the idea, but it was never doctrine.

CFR on plural marriage being ended by the Lord. You don't need to do it tonight, I'm going to bed soon. The United Order and gathering to Olaha Shinehah and all of N. and S. America is essential to building the New Jerusalem on the American continent. See the 10th Article of Faith. "A literal gathering" <-- that phrase troubles me, because reinterpreting and "spiritualizing" is how the former-day Saints feel into apostasy with their "metaphysical" Godhead. Okay, it might not be doctrine, but it was important. And it's just one of those little things that suggests, all is *not* well in Zion.Why am I a member? I'm technically not, currently. Though I do believe the Church still can find favor with the Lord, I'm seriously questioning if it still has all the ordinances of the Gospel. After all, Joseph Smith said:

...He set the ordinances to the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them. TPJS p.168

Or I can continue to believe what Joseph taught, namely that Adam was Michael in the pre-existence, and that God the Father was once a man, many, many eons ago; who through the power of the Holy Ghost caused Mary to become a pure vessel, literally the Mother of God. Our Father isn't distant, and never has been. He has revealed Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ. He has never revealed Himself as Adam. I think you're grasping at straws, especially considering the fact that there is no evidence to such malarky in the Standard Works. I can find more reference to our Mother than to this Adam-God hullaballoo.

Why don't you pray to God the Father, and ask if you can speak with Brigham Young about this?

[ERayR]

I don't understand what this business about "throwing BY or anyone else under the bus" is about. If BY was, indeed, teaching false doctrine, it is our duty, as per the Scriptures, to make that known. His discourses and various journal entries by members, the Lecture at the Veil, as well as the statements of some other leaders seem to prove that he was teaching false doctrine. I don't see pointing this out as throwing anybody under the bus. Since the Church was restored we have carried the attitude that our leaders are fallible, that men do not always serve in the capacity of Prophet, and because of this can make false statements. I am completely within the bounds of the oaths I took at the Temple to say that BY taught false doctrine; that's not an issue. I'm not speaking ill of the Lord's Anointed, I'm not apostatizing, and I'm not spewing anti-Mormon rhetoric. He was a man, he was allowed his mistakes. I sincerely believe he was mistaken, but I'm willing to look at the issue again, trying to rid myself of my preconceptions and bias, to see if perhaps there is no issue with what he taught.

My point is that you or any body else alive today doesn't know exactly what BY meant by what he said. If you are not too quick to condemn him for what you think he said. There is enough information available to cause one to withhold judgement and do further study.

[Notquitewetyet]

My point is that you or any body else alive today doesn't know exactly what BY meant by what he said. If you are not too quick to condemn him for what you think he said. There is enough information available to cause one to withhold judgement and do further study.

...and hopefully pray, asking the Father in the name of the Son whether these things are good, lovely, and true.

[lukas_s]

CFR on plural marriage being ended by the Lord. You don't need to do it tonight, I'm going to bed soon. The United Order and gathering to Olaha Shinehah and all of N. and S. America is essential to building the New Jerusalem on the American continent. See the 10th Article of Faith. "A literal gathering" <-- that phrase troubles me, because reinterpreting and "spiritualizing" is how the former-day Saints feel into apostasy with their "metaphysical" Godhead. Okay, it might not be doctrine, but it was important. And it's just one of those little things that suggests, all is *not* well in Zion.Why am I a member? I'm technically not, currently. Though I do believe the Church still can find favor with the Lord, I'm seriously questioning if it still has all the ordinances of the Gospel.

Your CFR for plural marriage being ended by the Lord? Wilford Woodruff's diary. He inquired of the Lord, the Manifesto was the result. He had previously asked his quorum (I think in 1887 and 88, I may be wrong, I'm not up to probing through my set of History of the Church) if plural marriage should be ended because of all the political turmoil, and they said absolutely not. Process of elimination would show that political turmoil wouldn't end polygamy, so the Lord would. Plus, had the Lord not wanted plural marriage ended, I'm sure He would have removed the sealing keys from the Prophet, and passed them on to somebody else. This didn't happen.

I agree that a literal gathering is necessary. However, we have known since the days of Joseph that this literal gathering would not occur until events were set in place for the Second Coming, namely Adam returning to Adam-ondi-Ahman to preside over the Priesthood.

Why don't you pray to God the Father, and ask if you can speak with Brigham Young about this?

I won't pray and ask to commune with a spirit of a dead man. I have no such capacity to do so. If Brother Brigham would like to reveal himself to me, I won't complain, but I'm not going to doubt what the Lord has already revealed to me concerning Adam-God.

[lukas_s]

My point is that you or any body else alive today doesn't know exactly what BY meant by what he said. If you are not too quick to condemn him for what you think he said. There is enough information available to cause one to withhold judgement and do further study.

I agree with you. As I've said before, I think the wealth of evidence shows that BY was teaching that Adam is the Father of our spirits, like NQWY has outlined so nicely for me. I'm willing to do more studying, however, at the point in time, with everything I've read, and what I feel the Lord has revealed to me, Adam-God isn't true, and Brigham Young was teaching false doctrine.

[Obiwan]

Man, certain peoples straining at a nat while swallowing the camel drives me nuts....

What Brigham ACTUALLY taught on this subject is still taught in the scriptures AND in the Temple today. Woe's me..........

[consiglieri]

I recognize Yahovah as the Savior of Michael, and that Jesus Christ will in the future/is in a sense now a Yahovah to us.

Now, here is a point of interest that I would like to ask you about.

Granted that Brigham Young did teach that Adam is the father of our spirits and the God of this world, and granted that Brigham Young further taught that Jesus is the first born son of Adam in the spirit, and granted that in Brigham's view, Jesus and Jehovah were separate personages;

Where is it you get the "recognition" that Jehovah was the Savior of Michael?

I am unable to find anything addressing that issue in Brigham Young's teachings, or in the teaching of any other Church leader.

Is there some citation to Brigham Young or other Church leader that says this part about Jehovah being Michael's Savior, or is that something that has just been surmised to fill in the gaps and come up with an identity and role for Jehovah?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. I note for the record that it has been three days since we last heard anything from Jason. I remark on this because it was Jason who challenged me to bring forth quotes from Brigham Young to support my position that Brigham Young did teach the "Adam-God Theory," and hence precipitated this thread.

And yet Jason has been noticeably unparticipative in this thread. Shall I take this as a concession on his part?

[consiglieri]

Man, certain peoples straining at a nat while swallowing the camel drives me nuts....

Do you mean those "certain peoples" who strain at the gnat of denying that Brigham Young taught the "Adam-God Theory," while swallowing the camel that what Brigham actually taught in this regard is still taught in the temple today?

It once was taught in the temple, but no longer after the extreme editing and modification of Brigham Young's "sermon at the veil."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[lukas_s]

Man, certain peoples straining at a nat while swallowing the camel drives me nuts....

What Brigham ACTUALLY taught on this subject is still taught in the scriptures AND in the Temple today. Woe's me..........

Perhaps you can enlighten us to what BY ACTUALLY taught, because I'm not getting it from his sermons, nor my Temple attendance. It seems that if he were teaching exactly what the Endowment teaches today that there wouldn't be so much confusion. If the teaching is still the same, why is the Lecture at the Veil gone?

[erichard]

...Is there some citation to Brigham Young or other Church leader that says this part about Jehovah being Michael's Savior, or is that something that has just been surmised to fill in the gaps and come up with an identity and role for Jehovah?

...

Jehovah and Michael go down and create a world for Michael to become Adam upon. Michael is clearly subordinate to Jehovah. That is in the Temple ceremony.

It would make sense that Jehovah would be the Savior of Michael on the previous earth. Thus the A/G doctrine becomes a continuation of the "Joint Heirs with Christ" teaching in the NT.

BY did teach that Michael/Adam was faithful to HIS Savior. You have certainly seen that quote. The 2BC clearly says Jehovah was the Savior of Michael, if one accepts that book.

Richard

[Jason]

P.S. I note for the record that it has been three days since we last heard anything from Jason. I remark on this because it was Jason who challenged me to bring forth quotes from Brigham Young to support my position that Brigham Young did teach the "Adam-God Theory," and hence precipitated this thread.

And yet Jason has been noticeably unparticipative in this thread. Shall I take this as a concession on his part?

No, it's not a concession. I have yet to see anything on this thread worth commenting further on.

[consiglieri]

No, it's not a concession. I have yet to see anything on this thread worth commenting further on.

Lame! Lame! Lame!