How Did Joseph See Both Adam And Michael; Aren’T They One And The Same Person??

[David T]

Good to know...that decades old second hand hearsay evidence is now considered eyewitness accounts...I hope you keep that in mind next time I present some decades old second hand hearsay evidence...cuz in reality I'll be presenting an eyewitness account and should be accepted without question.

Craig, I think he's referring to actual decades later first-hand eyewitness accounts. While they may be clouded by adjustments to memory, collective storytelling, etc, it doesn't make them hearsay, as they are the individuals reporting what they themselves believed they did see.there are decades later second hand hearsay reports. That is not, I believe, what Scott is referencing.

[Craig Paxton]

Craig, I think he's referring to actual decades later first-hand eyewitness accounts. While they may be clouded by adjustments to memory, collective storytelling, etc, it doesn't make them hearsay, as they are the individuals reporting what they themselves believed they did see.there are decades later second hand hearsay reports. That is not, I believe, what Scott is referencing.

So by this standard...all of the eyewitness affidavits collected by Doctor Philastus Hurlbut now become credible? Cool...

Edited July 6, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes. On the prior threads there were some who, like you, seemed to harbor the notion that when Van Wagoner speaks, the thinking has been done.

As I said, I'll provide a link when I can get to a desktop computer. Meanwhile, have you looked at Jorgensen's chapter in "Opening the Heavens"? Suffice it to say that Van Wagoner's ruminations are not the final word on the matter.

For Craig Paxton, as promised, here is a link to one of the prior threads about the perceived transfiguration of Brigham Young into the voice and visage of Joseph Smith. It contains a link to an even earlier thread. Alas, that link was broken when this board was restructured. But there is also a live link to a BYU Studies article by Jorgensen that was the basis for the chapter that later appeared in the book Opening the Heavens. Both the article and the book chapter contain the documented testimony of 121 eyewitnesses.

Craig, before going futher with this, I insist you read through the prior thread to acquaint yourself with answers to arguments that have already been raised on this matter. If you lack the ambition to do so, then I refuse to get drawn into a protracted discussion with you about it.

Much later add-on:

Here is a more recent thread in which the same arguments have been addressed. You should read this one as well before replying:

Edited July 29, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Craig, I think he's referring to actual decades later first-hand eyewitness accounts. While they may be clouded by adjustments to memory, collective storytelling, etc, it doesn't make them hearsay, as they are the individuals reporting what they themselves believed they did see.there are decades later second hand hearsay reports. That is not, I believe, what Scott is referencing.

Yes, you nailed it, David T. Thank you.

Going back to the affidavit that Samlam quoted, one can readily see that it is neither secondhand nor hearsay.

I think Craig Paxton needs to consult a good dictionary to acquaint himself with the definitions for the terms secondhand and hearsay.

Of course, firsthand testimony can still be unreliable and impeachable, as is the case with the affidavits gathered by Philastus Hurlbut for which Craig Paxton seems to have such great affinity. But that doesn't make it secondhand or hearsay.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

So by this standard...all of the eyewitness affidavits collected by Doctor Philastus Hurlbut now become credible? Cool...

To borrow a line from Bill Hamblin, such nincompoopery!

Edited July 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In its original form Joseph Smith Stated that he saw both Adam and Michael

'The heavens were opened upon us and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell,— I saw the transcendant beauty of the gate that enters, through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire, also the blasing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son,— I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold— I saw father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother, my brother Alvin [smith] that has long since slept,'

(Joseph Smith Papers website- I maintain original spelling)

Note how Joseph said that he saw “— saw father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother, my brother Alvin [smith] that has long since slept” …as separate individual beings…note this supposedly happened long before joseph formed the teaching that they were one and the same person.

So the problem presents itselfthus...he had already earlier taught that they were the same person yet here he says they were seperate individuals and then again later some 4 years he again teaches that Adam was Michael so when this “revelation” was edited for publication…the error was caught and changed to reflects what Joseph was then teaching…

From the D&C Section 137

' 1The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.

2I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire;

3Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.

4I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.

5I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;'

(LDS.org online scriptures)

Note…in the official D&C …Michael mysteriously disappears…poof…no asterisk, no mention of any kind…another LDS editing mystery I guess to make Joseph's teachings uniform with his revelation claims.

How...my wife sees me as two people, the boy she married and the PA PA, I am...same man in two roles.

[Scott Lloyd]

How...my wife sees me as two people, the boy she married and the PA PA, I am...same man in two roles.

This should be obvious. Adam was the name given to him in his mortal state, as the patriarch to the human race. Michael was the name he had in the pre-mortal existence when he helped form the world.

That he should be mentioned in these separate roles is hardly worth raising a fuss over.

[Craig Paxton]

To borrow a line from Bill Hamblin, such nincompoopery!

Well no reason for you to reply to any of my post then...best of luck to you Mr Lloyd...

[Scott Lloyd]

Well no reason for you to reply to any of my post then...

Only when it's necessary to counter misinformation or challenge an unsupported assertion.

In other words, don't be reckless with accuracy, and you won't have to deal with me.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[SamIam]

The answer in the form of a question?

What was the title often attributed to Joseph Smith's father?

Since this is lost on some perhaps you should elaborate.

Since it was my statement you are inquiring after I will elaborate. As you realize Joseph Smith jrs. fathers name was Joseph Smith. It was common practice in his time that when this situation occurred one would designate one as Joseph Smith and the other as Father Smith so as to eliminate the conflict of knowing who is being reference and also as a title of respect.

If you take the original quote, "I saw father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother, my brother Alvin” and look up the source that was provided earlier in Volgadon's post you will see the term quite frequently used in referring to "Father Smith."

However, the precise understanding of "I saw father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother, my brother Alvin” is one that Brigham Young referenced for years thereafter and one that has caused much confusion of many of his comments. As God the Father has many names and as Jesus Christ is known by many names it is appropriate to refer to either of them by names which fit roles they have fulfilled. So Joseph, in order to distinguish the individuals that he saw uses names that give each of them individual point of reference. Father Adam is a name given to God the Father and is designated as such for the express purpose that God the Father has served and serves in an Adam role in several ways. ...I was going to elaborate but it is not right for me to go beyond this explanation. For those who can hear, this is a key to understanding the majority of the controversial statements made by Brigham Young.

To rewrite the statement "I saw father Adam (God the Father), and Abraham and Michael (also Adam but Michael here for distinction from the other Adam) and my father and mother, my brother Alvin”

[edited at request of poster]

Very insightful if it makes sense.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Minos

[Craig Paxton]

Since it was my statement you are inquiring after I will elaborate. As you realize Joseph Smith jrs. fathers name was Joseph Smith. It was common practice in his time that when this situation occurred one would designate one as Joseph Smith and the other as Father Smith so as to eliminate the conflict of knowing who is being reference and also as a title of respect.

If you take the original quote, "I saw father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother, my brother Alvin” and look up the source that was provided earlier in Volgadon's post you will see the term quite frequently used in referring to "Father Smith."

However, the precise understanding of "I saw father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother, my brother Alvin” is one that Brigham Young referenced for years thereafter and one that has caused much confusion of many of his comments. As God the Father has many names and as Jesus Christ is known by many names it is appropriate to refer to either of them by names which fit roles they have fulfilled. So Joseph, in order to distinguish the individuals that he saw uses names that give each of them individual point of reference. Father Adam is a name given to God the Father and is designated as such for the express purpose that God the Father has served and serves in an Adam role in several ways. ...I was going to elaborate but it is not right for me to go beyond this explanation. For those who can hear, this is a key to understanding the majority of the controversial statements made by Brigham Young.

To rewrite the statement "I saw father Adam (God the Father), and Abraham and Michael (also Adam but Michael here for distinction from the other Adam) and my father and mother, my brother Alvin”

It was recorded in the Diary of Charles L. Walker, Sept 1832, p. 134.

Upon seeing Brigham Young for the first time and while yet some distance away the Prophet Joseph stopped his chopping on a beech log, straightened up, studied Brigham for a moment, then remarked: "There comes the greatest man who ever lived to teach the identity of God to the world, and he will yet lead this people."

Very insightful if it makes sense.

Surprisingly this make more sense to me than any other proposition thus made....but it also openes up a door through which I dare not go...

Edited July 9, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[ERMD]

Please, go...

[Craig Paxton]

Please, go...

Not feeling the love....

[CASteinman]

Well there you have it...confirmed proof of Joseph's prophethood...or perhaps...just maybe...we have a perfect example of coloring by numbers...where Joseph provided the lines and L.G. Hardy and Caleb D. Brinton filled in the blanks...over 62 years after the alledged incident took place....or perhaps Brigham was secretly taking an online Ute language course through rosettastone.com and had become proficient enough in Ute to have a friendly conversation with Chief Blackhawk...I think that that is just as likely as Brigham speaking in native tongues to indians without having some fore-knowledge of the language.

I mean how much credibility can be placed on these magical stories before it becomes apparent that they just aren’t reliable...similar spectacular stories such as the Kirtland ladies smashing their china so it can be placed in the mortar of the temple has been discredited as well as the story of Brigham transforming himself into Joseph. People who believe in magic see magic in their world….as these stories demonstrate.

Wow. Cool. So wrong yet succinct.

[Lachoneus]

It was recorded in the Diary of Charles L. Walker, Sept 1832, p. 134.

Upon seeing Brigham Young for the first time and while yet some distance away the Prophet Joseph stopped his chopping on a beech log, straightened up, studied Brigham for a moment, then remarked: "There comes the greatest man who ever lived to teach the identity of God to the world, and he will yet lead this people."

No such words appear in Walker's diary on page 134, or on any other page of his diary. The closest text to this false quote appears in volume 2 on page 422.

Br Levi W Hancock bore his testimony to the living Oracles of God. Said in the early rise of the church he lived two years with the Prophet Joseph, and one day he was chopping a Beech log with Joseph and saw Br Brigham for the first time. Joseph remarked to him before Brigham came within hearing “There is the greatest man that ever lived to teach redem[p]tion to the world and will yet lead this People.

(2 Diary of Charles Lowell Walker 422 (13 May 1876))

[SamIam]

Thanks for the correction...just can't trust anything on the net can you.