What Did Brigham Actually Believe?

[volgadon]

Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; he had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirits that was to come to this earth.

And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world.

[consiglieri]

I don't think that quote is authoritative enough, Volgadon.

It was only written by Brigham Young as part of a lecture given to faithful LDS at the veil in the temple.

Though this part regarding Adam and Eve being the parents of our spirits was edited out after Brigham Young's death, I believe vestiges of this sermon at the veil remained in the temple until relatively recently.

The creation is purely figurative insofar as the man and the woman are concerned.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

Consig, you are right, I should have posted this bit from your quotes. =)

...[p. 16] I tell you more, Adam is the father of our spirits....

[mapman]

I found this article by nackhadlow interesting: "I have gotten a man from the Lord"

[Lachoneus]

It was only written by Brigham Young as part of a lecture given to faithful LDS at the veil in the temple.

CFR that Brigham Young "wrote" the words quoted and that those words were ever part of the lecture at the veil.

[David T]

CFR that Brigham Young "wrote" the words quoted and that those words were ever part of the lecture at the veil.

You're correct. He didn't write it. He dictated it, and it was recorded and summarized.

There's a pretty good entry on it at FAIR, which should answer the other part of your CFR.

[Lachoneus]

You're correct. He didn't write it. He dictated it, and it was recorded

Exactly. It was recorded by L John Nuttall and J.D.T. McAllister on 1 February 1877 in the St. George Temple, not at President Young's private residence on 7 February 1877.

and summarized.

"Summarized" when and by whom? Give facts, not web sites.

There's a pretty good entry on it at FAIR, which should answer the other part of your CFR.

First, the Fair web site is extremely poor because it is factually incorrect. It is factually incorrect because it relies on Buerger's article which contains numerous factual errors, including the unsupported assumption that Nuttall's journal has something to do with the lecture at the veil. It does not.

Second, nothing on the Fair site establishes that Nuttall's journal contains any part of the lecture at the veil, summarized or otherwise. Buerger's bald claim by itself establishes nothing but Buerger's personal opinion. Opinion is not fact. My request is for facts.

Therefore, I repeat my CFR that the quoted words were ever any part of the lecture at the veil.

[volgadon]

Therefore, I repeat my CFR that the quoted words were ever any part of the lecture at the veil.

The

 CFR was proovided, that you think it isn't a very good one is a different matter.

[kamenraider]

I believe Brigham Young was right as far as his Adam-God teachings go, however, when I talk to my young son about Adam and Eve and the fall, I mention that they conversed with Heavenly Father, and when I make comments or give talks at church, I always mention Adam and God as separate. Could that be considered genuine proof though, that I do not believe in Adam-God, just because I've made some public remarks that technically contradict it?

[Obiwan]

Obiwan, BY could have taught a standard teaching of Adam a million billion zillion gazillion times, but it doesn't change the documented fact that for a while he also taught A-G. It's not that difficult to figure out. People can change their beliefs at times. It happens all of the time. I'm pretty sure that your beliefs have not always been the way they are right now.

Instead of hiding in ignorance, read the article I posted.

Sheesh, even FAIR acknowledges that BY taught A-G.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God

http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God_and_the_"Lecture_at_the_Veil"

Hey creampuff.... I've been studying Church history, doctrine and anti-mormonism for some 30 years, as well active in other religions, and having left the Church and been a bit anti-mormon before figuring things out and knowing the whole truth some 20 years ago. So, I think I know what I'm talking about.

I'm not questioning his "words", I'm questioning the common anti-mormon understanding (and the rare mormon) of those words.

In other words.... He NEVER EVER taught that "God our Heavenly Father" was Adam. PERIOD.

THAT is the so-called "Adam/God" doctrine which anti-mormonism teaches and finds so offensive, and he simply did not teach it. Him using the words Adam, God, and/or Father together is not the Adam/God Doctrine per anti-mormonism. As all anti-mormonism, they "pervert" the truth in order to attempt to destroy the Church and keep the elect away.

[the narrator]

Hey creampuff.... I've been studying Church history, doctrine and anti-mormonism for some 30 years, as well active in other religions, and having left the Church and been a bit anti-mormon before figuring things out and knowing the whole truth some 20 years ago. So, I think I know what I'm talking about.

I'm not questioning his "words", I'm questioning the common anti-mormon understanding (and the rare mormon) of those words.

In other words.... He NEVER EVER taught that "God our Heavenly" was Adam. PERIOD.

THAT is the so-called "Adam/God" doctrine, and he simply did not teach it.

haha. brilliant. turn to name calling.

[Lachoneus]

The

 CFR was proovided, that you think it isn't a very good one is a different matter.

It is not that the site you provided is just not very good, it simply does not answer the CFR. Citing an irrelevant web site is not an answer to a CFR. All that site does is repeat Buerger's unsupported personal opinion. There is NOTHING on the site that provides a factual basis for the claim that the quoted words were ever part of the lecture at the veil. Buerger's personal opinion is not a fact that establishes the claim. Therefore I can only assume that the entire factual basis for the claim is "because David Buerger says so" because that is the only fact you have provided. Therefore, I continue my CFR for a factual basis for the claim. Buerger gives no such factual basis and neither have you. If you disagree, please cite the specific facts Buerger gives.

In the mean time, here is how Nuttall describes how the lecture at the veil came to be written.

MEMORANDA

In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Brigham Young, in following up in the Endowments written, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing.

Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elder J.D.T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing material, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple.

A copy of the Lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which President Young refers to Adam in his creation &c.

/s/ L. John Nuttall

For Presidents W. Woodruff

Geo. Q. Cannon

Jos. F. Smith

June 3, 1892

Salt Lake City

L. John Nuttall,