Did Brigham Young Teach the Adam-God Theory?

[Jason]

I'll keep checking the thread. If something comes up that I feel I should comment on I will.

[consiglieri]

I'll keep checking the thread. If something comes up that I feel I should comment on I will.

I hope that you will continue checking this thread, Jason, because I want you to read this post where I call you on the carpet.

On December 11th, in the Bruce R. McConkie Adam-God Thread, I provided a summary of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God for the benefit of jkfrost.

You leaped into the discussion demanding a call for references in lieu of a summary:

Sorry, I don't think you're giving an accurate depiction of what Brigham Young taught Consig.

CFR all your points - let's see if you can back them up with in-context quotes from BY himself rather than writing a summary like this.

In response to John Larsen's comment that the view must be great from your ivory tower, you said the following referring to me:

If Brigham Young really taught it he should be able to show it.

When I advised that I had spent years of research in this particular area, you stated:

I've read these particular sermons, and I don't agree with your summary of what Brigham Young was teaching in them.

If you want to make your case you had best start citing which part of which sermon supports each of your points so we can see if your summary is really grounded in BY's own words.

When I did not immediately respond to your demand for references, you stated:

Are you stalling?

I didn't say Brigham Young didn't teach some unnusual stuff here, or that his audience didn't think it was odd, or that Elder McConkie didn't mis-understand it, merely that it's not what you said he was teaching in your summary.

I await the breakdown of your summary point-by-point with BY quotes supporting each with bated breath.

At that point, I started this thread in response to your challenge.

I have provided in this thread no less than ten quotes from primary sources substantiating the fact that Brigham Young did, in fact, teach the Adam-God Theory, and that my summary was correct. Others have chimed in with additional references along the way, for which I am grateful.

Your response is to sniff that what has been produced is not worthy of your comment.

Now, what would you call a person who acted as you have?

Words escape me at the present.

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

I have provided in this thread no less than ten quotes from primary sources substantiating the fact that Brigham Young did, in fact, teach the Adam-God Theory, and that my summary was correct. Others have chimed in with additional references along the way, for which I am grateful.

They were mostly second-hand accounts of various members troubled by what they thought they had heard. From direct quotes of BY himself I see one possible misquote and a series of quotes that are adequately explained with the "Adam is another name of God the Father" idea.

I thought I made this position fairly clear in an earlier post on this thread (#20). In short, I remain unconvinced that your summary was accurate, and you certainly haven't supported all the points you made in it with direct quotes from Brother Brigham, including the following:

"Brigham Young believed every world had its own savior, similarly being the firstborn son of the God of each particular world.)"

That BY's expalantion of the Fall was "Adam came to the garden with his exalted body and ate of the fruits of the trees of the garden until a change was made in the physical nature of his body, such that it became mortal and capable of producing mortal children along with his wife, Eve. (This was Brigham Young's explanation for the fall.)" From what I can tell, this is BY's expalanation of how less-than-celestial bodies were created by Celestial beings, not for the Fall.

"Elohim is the father, or grand-father, etc. of Adam, and hence Elohim is also our father."

"Brigham Young did not care to distinguish how far removed Elohim was from Adam, whether one generation, or two or more."

"Brigham Young knew that Jehovah was somewhere between Elohim and Michael..."

That BY didn't equate Jehovah with Jesus I'll grant you. That understanding seems to not have been prevelent in the Church until well after his tenure.

I insist on direct quotes from Brigham Young because it seems obvious that many people weren't sure what he was talking about here, which means they were likely to mis-hear or mis-understand it.

What would I call myself at this point? A healthy skeptic.

[consiglieri]

I thought I made this position fairly clear in an earlier post on this thread (#20). In short, I remain unconvinced that your summary was accurate, and you certainly haven't supported all the points you made in it with direct quotes from Brother Brigham, including the following:

Brigham Young believed every world had its own savior, similarly being the firstborn son of the God of each particular world.)"

Perhaps you missed post number 4.

That BY's expalantion of the Fall was "Adam came to the garden with his exalted body and ate of the fruits of the trees of the garden until a change was made in the physical nature of his body, such that it became mortal and capable of producing mortal children along with his wife, Eve. (This was Brigham Young's explanation for the fall.)" From what I can tell, this is BY's expalanation of how less-than-celestial bodies were created by Celestial beings, not for the Fall.

Perhaps you overlooked posts 4, 10 and 12.

"Elohim is the father, or grand-father, etc. of Adam, and hence Elohim is also our father."

"Brigham Young did not care to distinguish how far removed Elohim was from Adam, whether one generation, or two or more."

I invite you to peruse the quote below:

Journal of Discourses: 4:217-219; Discourse by President Brigham Young delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; February 8, 1857.

Thus you may continue and trace the human family back to Adam and Eve, and ask, are we of the same species with Adam and Eve? Yes, every person acknowledges this; this comes within the scope of our understanding.

But when we arrive at that point, a vail is dropped, and our knowledge is cut off. Were it not so, you could trace back your history to the Father of our spirits in the eternal world. He is a being of the same species as ourselves; He lives as we do, except the difference that we are earthly, and He is heavenly. He has been earthly, and is of precisely the same species of being that we are. 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 knew that Jehovah was somewhere between Elohim and Michael..."

It's called the temple endowment.

That BY didn't equate Jehovah with Jesus I'll grant you. That understanding seems to not have been prevelent in the Church until well after his tenure.

So you do admit that Brigham Young taught doctrine that is not taught today. Having cracked open the door, why do you argue in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary that Brigham Young did not also teach that Adam is the father of our spirits and the God of this world?

But wait! You did not put that primary element of the Adam-God Theory in your list of things you said I have not demonstrated. Was that merely an oversight, or is it because you concede the point?

I insist on direct quotes from Brigham Young because it seems obvious that many people weren't sure what he was talking about here, which means they were likely to mis-hear or mis-understand it.

You are incorrect. "Many people" were quite sure what he was talking about, and "many people" wrote it down, and surprisingly, "many people" recorded Brigham Young as saying the same thing. What are the odds that they all misheard or misunderstood Brigham Young to say the same thing?

What would I call myself at this point? A healthy skeptic.

But why are you skeptical in the face of the evidence? That is the question.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mpschmitt]

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

This is too far outside of the realm of canonical doctrine for me to accept and I don't find it supported by scripture.

Jesus very clearly associates himself on a number of occasions in Scriputure with the name Jehovah.

For example:

John 8:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

I think the Lord's intent here is unambiguous as evidenced by the reaction of his opponents. Blasphemy was the crime in their eyes. Blasphemy against the name of Jehovah.

Doctrine and Covenants 29:1 is another example:

Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I Am, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins;

Doctrine and Covenants 38:1 is another:

Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made;

Doctrine and Covenants 39:1 is similarly worded:

Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I Am, even Jesus Christ—

Doctrine and Covenants 110 also presents an identification of the name-title Jehovah with Jesus Christ:

1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure cgold, in color like amber.

3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his cvoice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

See these also:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/g/53

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/44

The God of the Book of Mormon. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Mosiah 23:23) who was Jehovah in the Old Testament, is clearly the pre-mortal Jesus Christ (Mosiah 7:27, Mosiah 13:27-35, Mosiah 15, Mosiah 17:8, Alma 43:14-15, Ether 3:6-20)

Again though, as with Adam, we are dealing with a name-title. The meaning and intent of the name-title Jehovah also could be rightly applied to Heavenly Father in certain contexts. Name-titles are prevalent in scripture and are used by God the Father. the Son and the Holy Ghost to convey aspects of of their character and attributes.

Joseph smith rightly recognized that Adam was subordinate to Christ and also rightly testified of Adam's glorious role as presiding patriarch over the human race:

“Adam … was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the ‘Ancient of Days’ [Daniel 7:9], or in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of whom it is said in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth. Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times; i.e., the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations that are to be revealed. …

“… [God] set the ordinances to be 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. ‘Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?’ [Hebrews 1:14.]

“These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord. From the above quotation we learn that Paul perfectly understood the purposes of God in relation to His connection with man, and that glorious and perfect order which He established in Himself, whereby He sent forth power, revelations, and glory.

“God will not acknowledge that which He has not called, ordained, and chosen. In the beginning God called Adam by His own voice. ‘And the Lord called unto Adam and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, and hid myself.’ [Genesis 3:9–10.] Adam received commandments and instructions from God: this was the order from the beginning.

“That he received revelations, commandments and ordinances at the beginning is beyond the power of controversy; else how did they begin to offer sacrifices to God in an acceptable manner? And if they offered sacrifices they must be authorized by ordination. We read in Genesis [4:4] that Abel brought of the firstlings of the flock and the fat thereof, and the Lord had respect to Abel and to his offering. …

“This, then, is the nature of the Priesthood; every man holding the Presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the Presidency of them all, even Adam; and Adam receiving his Presidency and authority from the Lord, but cannot receive a fullness until Christ shall present the Kingdom to the Father, which shall be at the end of the last dispensation. (see this chapter in it's entirety for even more: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...contentLocale=0 )

[cksalmon]

That would be too much hard work! You don't need to. The hard work has already been done by the apostates and anti-Mormons. It is a lot easier to look it up in them than in the JOD.

zerinus

I'm trying to figure out whether this is satire or you're for real.

Assuming the latter, I find it hard to imagine that you would counsel against looking into actual, primary LDS sources.

That's what Consig does (and has done here).

We're very fortunate in terms of the incredibly vast amount of primary material extant re: Mormonism. I think this is one reason Mormonism tends to be so fascinating to certain never-Mo's like myself. The literature of Restorationism is incredibly vast. And won't be lost to time, thanks to digitization.

I have to almost literally shake my head in wonder at one who would see BY's Adam-God doctrine as an invention of anti-Mormons. That truly boggles.

Whatever it was that he meant, and however such material should be interpreted, Consig consistently deals with primary sources, LDS or otherwise.

----

Consig--

You've got your work cut out for you, my friend.

cks

[Notquitewetyet]

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?

Ah, consiglieri, you got me. I tried to find such an explicit id in my little volume, but I couldn't. I got this idea from a. Brigham's cursory review of the temple and b. Joseph Musser's "Michael: Our Father and Our God." Still, if Jehovah wasn't Michael's Savior, that would make this even more confusing, if Jehovah still isn't Jesus. This is a very tough topic, and I commend you for facing the facts, unpopular as they are with some other fellow members. BTW, you're avatar looks familiar. Is that some character from a movie?

[lukas_s]

Ah, consiglieri, you got me. I tried to find such an explicit id in my little volume, but I couldn't. I got this idea from a. Brigham's cursory review of the temple and b. Joseph Musser's "Michael: Our Father and Our God." Still, if Jehovah wasn't Michael's Savior, that would make this even more confusing, if Jehovah still isn't Jesus. This is a very tough topic, and I commend you for facing the facts, unpopular as they are with some other fellow members. BTW, you're avatar looks familiar. Is that some character from a movie?

Do you take Joseph Musser as any kind of authority in the Church of Christ? Which Apostle gave him the keys to continue plural marriage, or is this just another in the line of long constructs the fundamentalists have had to create to go against the Lord and His Church?

[Notquitewetyet]

Do you take Joseph Musser as any kind of authority in the Church of Christ? Which Apostle gave him the keys to continue plural marriage, or is this just another in the line of long constructs the fundamentalists have had to create to go against the Lord and His Church?

Joseph Musser:

On June 29, 1892, Musser was called to the 16th Quorum of the Seventy, and two years later in April 1895 served a mission in Alabama, having been set apart by Brigham Young, Jr., Heber J. Grant, and John W. Taylor.

On Thanksgiving Day 1899, in the company of four other couples, Musser and his wife, Rose Selms Borquist, received his Second Anointing at the unusually young age of twenty-seven, under the direction of Lorenzo Snow[2]. Musser was later told by Apostle Brigham Young, Jr. that the President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, had sent him (B.Y Young, Jr.) to tell Musser that if he did not enter into the principle of plural marriage he would lose his blessings (presumably, the blessings promised in the Second Anointing). This likely suggested to Musser that living plural was a pre-requisite qualification for the blessings of the Second Anointing, regardless of the previous administration of the ordinance.

In November 1901 he was made president of the 105th Quorum of Seventy, and would later also serve as a high councilor in the Uintah, Wasatch and Granite Stakes (being set apart by president Joseph F. Smith). "On 16 February 1903 Patriarch John M. Murdock ordained Musser to the office of High Priest. He was then the husband to two women; both marriages were post-Manifesto" [3]. Musser was also the Duchesne Uintah branch president beginning in 1906[4].

from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_W._Musser

Looks like he held some authority in the Church, and decided to stay faithful to that which was revealed to him. If the Church starts performing gay marriages, and you're a bishop, what would you do? Tough call, eh? Well, don't be so quick to judge the poor fundamentalists. This man spent years in jail for his beliefs. I'm not going to judge the current leaders of the Church. In fact, on a recent thread a catholic poster said Mormon apostles are lacking in the virtue of honesty, and I told him he was full of it.

[lukas_s]

That still didn't answer my question. Which Apostle gave Joseph Musser the keys to continue sealing plural marriages up to God for time and eternity? I'm well aware that plural marriages were still sanctioned, and in a few Apostle's cases, practiced post Manifesto #1. After Manifesto #2, where did Joseph Musser get the authority to continue in the practice?

And to answer your other question, if I were a Bishop, and the Church began performing gay marriage because of a revelation from the Lord, I would go along with it. That's a silly question to ask a supporter of gay marriage, and a homosexual, anyway.

[Notquitewetyet]

That still didn't answer my question. Which Apostle gave Joseph Musser the keys to continue sealing plural marriages up to God for time and eternity? I'm well aware that plural marriages were still sanctioned, and in a few Apostle's cases, practiced post Manifesto #1. After Manifesto #2, where did Joseph Musser get the authority to continue in the practice?

I'm not a member of the AUB or one of the branch offs. Still, I'm not a member of the Methodists, but that doesn't stop me from going to a Methodist service and finding truth there. I was playing devil's advocate. I'm still out on the question of Lorin C. Woolley and the 1886 priesthood conferral.

And to answer your other question, if I were a Bishop, and the Church began performing gay marriage because of a revelation from the Lord, I would go along with it. That's a silly question to ask a supporter of gay marriage, and a homosexual, anyway.

??? Sorry, I thought you were mainstream, follow-the-prophet-and-be-sure-to-pay-tithing-but-ignore-the-changes LDS. So you're not LDS?

[lukas_s]

I'm not a member of the AUB or one of the branch offs. Still, I'm not a member of the Methodists, but that doesn't stop me from going to a Methodist service and finding truth there. I was playing devil's advocate. I'm still out on the question of Lorin C. Woolley and the 1886 priesthood conferral.

Fair enough. If you find anything definitive about Lorin C. Woolley's ordination be sure to let me know. I think I've read just about everything there is about the man, and can't find anything that would actually lead me to believe that anything he says is true.

??? Sorry, I thought you were mainstream, follow-the-prophet-and-be-sure-to-pay-tithing-but-ignore-the-changes LDS. So you're not LDS?

I am a mainstream, follow-the-Prophet-when-the-Spirit-confirms-his-words-are-true, full tithe paying, certainly aware of all the doctrinal changes, Melchizedek priesthood ordained, Endowed, gay, celibate Mormon.

[kamenraider]

Regarding Jehovah being the Savior of Michael, this seems to be relevant:

Not surprisingly, President Woodruff's advice did not end the controversy. In 1896, Edward Stevenson, one of the Seven Presidents of Seventy, had "a deep talk" with President Lorenzo Snow about the Adam-God doctrine. Afterwards, Stevenson wrote in his diary concerning the temple creation gods: "Certainly Heloheim and Jehovah stands before Adam, or else I am very much mistaken. Then 1st Heloheim, 2nd Jehovah, 3rd Michael-Adam, 4th Jesus Christ, Our Elder Brother, in the other World from whence our spirits come.... Then Who is Jehovah? The only begotton [sic] Son of Heloheim on Jehovah's world."58 This reference clearly distinguishes between the Jehovah who presided over Michael at the creation and Jesus. Unfortunately this distinction was not clearly made by General Authorities who were publicly promoting the idea that Jesus was the Jehovah-god of the Old Testament. Naturally, Church members continued to be confused.

58. Edward Stevenson Diary, 3 March and 28 February 1896, Church Archives.

--from "Jehovah As Father: The Development of the Mormon Jehovah Doctrine" by Boyd Kirkland, Sunstone 9 (Autumn 1984): 36-44.

I'm shocked that people would assume that "Jehovah" only applies to one person.

[Notquitewetyet]

I am a mainstream, follow-the-Prophet-when-the-Spirit-confirms-his-words-are-true, full tithe paying, certainly aware of all the doctrinal changes, Melchizedek priesthood ordained, Endowed, gay, celibate Mormon.

Sorry if I came across a bit strong, I just felt like you put me in a corner and I just had to slash my way out of it.

[lukas_s]

Sorry if I came across a bit strong, I just felt like you put me in a corner and I just had to slash my way out of it.

I didn't read it that way at all! I try not to get offended or upset with anything anybody says online, and I hope people do that same when reading whatever I write. It's incredibly hard to read intent through a block of text.

[Notquitewetyet]

I didn't read it that way at all! I try not to get offended or upset with anything anybody says online, and I hope people do that same when reading whatever I write. It's incredibly hard to read intent through a block of text.

Agreed. I actually had this same problem with my girlfriend's friend sending me a text message. You seem like a nice, knowledgable person. Hopefully no hard feelings?

[lukas_s]

Agreed. I actually had this same problem with my girlfriend's friend sending me a text message. You seem like a nice, knowledgable person. Hopefully no hard feelings?

None whatsoever. I just find the fundamentalist (I'm not sure if that's what you would like to be called) mindset interesting, and hope you will continue contributing from that slant.

[erichard]

This is too far outside of the realm of canonical doctrine for me to accept and I don't find it supported by scripture.

Jesus very clearly associates himself on a number of occasions in Scriputure with the name Jehovah.

...

Doctrine and Covenants 29:1 is another example:

...Again though, as with Adam, we are dealing with a name-title. The meaning and intent of the name-title Jehovah also could be rightly applied to Heavenly Father in certain contexts. Name-titles are prevalent in scripture and are used by God the Father. the Son and the Holy Ghost to convey aspects of of their character and attributes.

Joseph smith rightly recognized that Adam was subordinate to Christ and also rightly testified of Adam's glorious role as presiding patriarch over the human race:

Hi mpschmitt,

Consider D&C 29 again.

Verse 1 says, as you quoted:

Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I Am, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins.

but then notice verse 42:

But, behold, I say unto you that I, the Lord God, gave unto Adam and unto his seed, that they should not die as to the temporal death, until I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son.

In verse 1 the revelation voice calls itself Jesus Christ. In verse 42 it speaks of "mine Only Begotten Son.". Does Jesus of Nazareth have an Only Begotten Son?

When Jesus speaks, by many examples, he speaks the words of his Father. He is doing the SAME works as His father, and treads in the tracks of His Father.

As you yourself state: "Name-titles are prevalent in scripture"

So, D&C 29 is the Word of the LORD, it is the Word of Jehovah, it is the Word of Jesus Christ. These are name titles. They apply to the Father of Jesus and now also apply to Jesus of Nazareth-- as he has overcome the world. Verse 1 applies to the Father of Jesus of Narareth as much as it applies to him-- His father is also Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. And His Father sends His Only Begotten Son.

By all my study, President Young's Adam-God teachings always place Adam/Michael subordinate to Jehovah. Even likewise, President Young taught that if we are true and faithful we can become Adams and Eves on future worlds. And certainly we will be subordinate to Jehovah also. But apparently not the same personage acting as Jehovah. Our Jehovah will be Jesus of Nazareth. Our father Adam/Michael, whom we tread in his tracks and do his works, is subject to his Jehovah.

Richard

[Lachoneus]

Regarding Jehovah being the Savior of Michael, this seems to be relevant:

I'm shocked that people would assume that "Jehovah" only applies to one person.

I agree that this is relevant. What is relevant about it is that it is not accurate. It is unfortunate that Kirkland was not able to tell the truth in the brief quote provided here. On 28 February 1896 Edward Stevenson wrote in his journal:

28 Feb 1896

Certainly Heloheim and Jehovah stands before Adam, or else I am very much mistaken. Then 1st Heloheim, 2nd Jehovah, 3rd Michael-Adam, 4th Jesus Christ, Our Elder Brother, in the other World from whence our spirits come. . . . .

Then Who is Jehovah? The only begotten Son of Heloheim on Jehovah's world.

Was Stevenson â??very much mistakenâ? as he admits is possible? I believe he was. But if we disagree on that, there can be no disagreement that Kirkland is â??very much mistakenâ? when he claims that Stevenson wrote this after he had his â??deep talkâ? with President Snow. That deep talk did not take place until three days later. After that talk Stevenson wrote

3 March 1896

I have more pleasure than usual with a deep talk with Pres. L. Snow on Adam â?? Jehovah â?? Elohim and Jesus and Spirits and Regarding their immortality, creation, &c â?? &c.

If you want to describe this as talking â??with President Lorenzo Snow about the Adam-God doctrineâ? as Kirkland does, that is your choice. I donâ??t see it that way, but I will let everyone make up their own minds. But I think we can agree that Kirkland should have at least been accurate enough to inform his readers that this "deep talk" occurred three days after Stevenson wrote his â??mistakenâ? views concerning Jehovah, etc., not before. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated occurrence in Kirklandâ??s work. I would not take anything he says as accurate without checking it out firsthand myself.

For those who want to check out Stevensonâ??s 13 volume journal, it can be found in the BYU Lee Library, catalog number BX 8670.1.St478s 1896. It is in Special Collections, room 1130. Fortunately, there is also a 184 page index that is very helpful.

I'm shocked that so little attention is paid to matters that some people choose to take so seriously.

[mpschmitt]

Hi mpschmitt,

Consider D&C 29 again.

Verse 1 says, as you quoted:

but then notice verse 42:

In verse 1 the revelation voice calls itself Jesus Christ. In verse 42 it speaks of "mine Only Begotten Son.". Does Jesus of Nazareth have an Only Begotten Son?

When Jesus speaks, by many examples, he speaks the words of his Father. He is doing the SAME works as His father, and treads in the tracks of His Father.

As you yourself state: "Name-titles are prevalent in scripture"

So, D&C 29 is the Word of the LORD, it is the Word of Jehovah, it is the Word of Jesus Christ. These are name titles. They apply to the Father of Jesus and now also apply to Jesus of Nazareth-- as he has overcome the world. Verse 1 applies to the Father of Jesus of Narareth as much as it applies to him-- His father is also Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. And His Father sends His Only Begotten Son.

By all my study, President Young's Adam-God teachings always place Adam/Michael subordinate to Jehovah. Even likewise, President Young taught that if we are true and faithful we can become Adams and Eves on future worlds. And certainly we will be subordinate to Jehovah also. But apparently not the same personage acting as Jehovah. Our Jehovah will be Jesus of Nazareth. Our father Adam/Michael, whom we tread in his tracks and do his works, is subject to his Jehovah.

Richard

I see your point and I've noticed the same thing about that section of Doctrine and Covenants...

This is how I see that changeover to the voice of the Father at the end of the section...

There is a principle at work here that we also see in the Old Testament. A number of times (See Genesis 16, Zechariah 3, Genesis 22, 2 Kings 1 for examples), the Angel of the Lord speaks in the voice of the Lord.

One of Jesus' name-titles is the Word (John 1). As such we can expect him to be the Word of the Father. He has not relinquished that role.

What I see in D+C 29 is a change of language at a certain point. In Verse 5 and 12he's clearly speaking about the Father as someone other than himself. In 17 he talks about his own blood cleansing them, so this is still Jesus speaking. In 18 I see a transition of ownership of the words from the Son to the Father with the phrase "I, the Lord God" that remains consistent for the rest of the section. He talks in verse 31 of having created them spiritually and temporally, which spiritual creation clearly was the perogative of the father (See Moses 3, and notice the use of the name-title "Lord God" there). The verses you mention demonstrate that Jesus is acting from verse 18-50 as the Word of the Father whereas before those verses he is speaking as the Savior and Advocate.

Can you see my take on that scripture?

It seems consistent with the Old Testament pattern I mentioned before.

"Whether by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same...."

That's where I'm coming from there.

Also if you missed it, I had lengthened that previous post by a bit shortly after I first posted it, so I'm not sure which version you saw. I'm curious what you thought of the Joseph Smith quote I shared at the end.

[Olavarria]

Sorry, I thought you were mainstream, follow-the-prophet-and-be-sure-to-pay-tithing-but-ignore-the-changes LDS. So you're not LDS?

I think that is one good way to go about it.

[consiglieri]

This is too far outside of the realm of canonical doctrine for me to accept and I don't find it supported by scripture.

The concept of "canonical doctrine" is something that Mormonism seems to have been restored in order to do away with. It was the locking of God into "canonical doctrine," or "creeds," that precipitated the great apostasy, in the Mormon view.

Jesus is reported to have said to Joseph Smith in the First Vision that the "creeds" of Christendom were an "abomination."

I see no indication that Joseph Smith at any time in his life tried to systemetize and organize the various items of revelation he received from the Lord.

This is somewhat remarkable, inasmuch as it is the natural tendency of people to do so. Nevertheless, Joseph Smith seems to have been content to receive various and sundry revelations; and teach numerous things; but never thought it necessary to try to organize it all into one complete whole.

This is suggestive.

It may be that Joseph Smith just never had the time to do so; but he was incredibly adept at making time to do all the things he felt commanded of God to do; so if this had been at all a priority, I have no doubt he would have done it, or at least initiated such a project.

But he did not.

I think that subsequent Mormons who have taken Joseph Smith's teachings, and the scriptures, and tried to systemetize them into an "orthodox religion" or "canonical doctrine," while well meaning, have inadvertently fallen into the same trap the first Mormons accused apostate Christianity from having blundered into.

If we look at Brigham Young's teachings from the viewpoint of early Mormonism, there really should be no problem with his stating additional and new items relating to God. And the truth be told, Joseph Smith had already provided all the building blocks for Brigham's views; only a few gaps needed to be filled in. Brigham Young filled in those gaps in a way different from subsequent Mormons, in his attempt to systemetize Joseph Smith's teachings.

20th century Mormon leaders filled in the gaps differently than Brigham Young, but were still motivated by the strong desire to systemetize the restoration revelations.

I think it is precisely because the Mormon Church has come to create its own creed of what constitutes "Mormon Doctrine" that Brigham Young's teachings become such a problem. That and the Mormons' penchant for ascribing infallibility to their prophets.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Consig--

You've got your work cut out for you, my friend.

cks

Thanks for your supportive words, my NoMoBro!

Fortunately, I do not consider it my work to persuade others to the correctness of my view. Well, maybe that is not entirely correct, or I would never have bothered to create this thread!

Perhaps it is more correct to say that I do not care whether I am able to persuade others. (Yes, I think that is closer to the truth.)

But Zerinus is for real, I think, based on other posts he has made in other threads. Anything that comes into contact with his view of the "orthodox religion" is automatically wrong, and anybody who suggests such a thing is "wasting his time," and likely in need of a good psychological evaluation.

But Zerinus' posts have been important, in that they help provide a more representative sample of the responses Mormons have to this type of information.

Jason has dismissed it with a wave of his hand and a sniff.

Zerinus wishes to kill the messenger. This has been easy for him in the past because he has perceived the messenger of these tidings to be strictly anti-Mormons. When a 30-year faithful and active Mormon presents the same information, however, his knee-jerk reaction is to do the same, and to conclude that I am in league with the anti-Mormons. (See Obiwan.)

I think the Adam-God Theory is like a zombie that you think is safely buried 6-feet under. It can be disconcerting to later see the zombie crawl out of the grave and go shambling along the street outside your house. And what do you do when the zombie starts shuffling up your front walk?

I used to be terrified of the zombie. I would close my eyes and pretend he wasn't there. (See Jason.) Or I would tell myself that it wasn't really a zombie, it was actually just a regular person who looked a lot like the guy who got buried. (See Elden Watson.) Or I would grab a garden shovel and try to decapitate it. (See Zerinus.)

Ultimately, I found that the best method for dealing with this particular zombie was to invite him inside for a cup of hot tea and make friends. When I did so, much to my surprise the zombie ended up being an amiable sort, and the hot tea transformed him back into a pleasant and genial guest.

Having made his acquaintance, I sometimes forget that he still looks like a frightful zombie to most everyone else on my street.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Black Moclips]

And Consiglieri was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did delight in openmindedness and sound arguement; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and the freedom of his brethren from the bondage and slavery of dogma and doctrine;

Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Consiglieri, behold, the very powers of apologetics would have been shaken forever; yea, and peaceful discourse would have always had power over the hearts of the children of men.

I like your posts Consiglieri. Keep it up.

[kamenraider]

...

For those who want to check out Stevensonâ??s 13 volume journal, it can be found in the BYU Lee Library, catalog number BX 8670.1.St478s 1896. It is in Special Collections, room 1130. Fortunately, there is also a 184 page index that is very helpful.

I'm shocked that so little attention is paid to matters that some people choose to take so seriously.

Thanks for the info. Kirkland must've gotten the dates mixed up between the two entries. I think it is significant though that Stevenson still lists Jesus separately from Jehovah in his later entry, after the talk with Lorenzo Snow.

BTW, you aren't trying to say that "Jehovah" should only be applied to Jesus, are you?