Jump to content

Evidence Brigham Young Was A Prophet


Recommended Posts

I want to thank everyone for their responses. I feel though that the more I read about stuff like the Adam God theory, the more discouraged I feel. It just seems so out of whack to me that Brigham Young would say something that had to be totally reversed by SWK. I am an active LDS person, and I know that prophets are not infallible, but it seems like things like Adam God are so far out there that sometimes I don't know if I can know which prophets to trust.

 

It's simple - unless you have the actual word of God on a subject (ie scripture) it's all just opinion.  SWK had one opinion.  BY had a different opinion.  Since we have no scripture that categorically states which is right, it all comes down to their interpretations and your interpretation.  If we study and pray, we will have our own understanding opened.  And I have always failed to see why Brigham Young's teachings that have been dropped are "more out there" than the teachings we kept.  Mormonism has always been a strange and peculiar religion.  Sure he wasn't always right, but he was still the mouthpiece of the Lord at that time.

Link to comment

The theory that he was denouncing was the teaching that Adam is the father of our spirits.  Do you believe that?

Adam was named after his Father, that is who Brigham Young was talking about!

D&C 27:11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;

His name was Michael and he was given the title the same as his Father's, similar to Abram and Jacob given titles.

"In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:

'We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.' "

"ALLEGED" is the operative word. Brigham Young's teachings have been twisted then alleged to have been taught by him!

Link to comment

Adam was named after his Father, that is who Brigham Young was talking about!

D&C 27:11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;

His name was Michael and he was given the title the same as his Father's, similar to Abram and Jacob given titles.

"In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:

'We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.' "

"ALLEGED" is the operative word. Brigham Young's teachings have been twisted then alleged to have been taught by him!

 

"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later."

 

Where does it say Adam was named after his father?  D&C 27:11 is in reference to the man Adam, the father of all mankind.  Either way, this is clearly not a simple confusion about who Brigham was speaking of, he clearly places him with Eve.  Later he even distinguishes Elohim, Yahweh, and Michael.  He was not speaking about Elohim in the above quote, he was speaking of Michael - Adam.

 

It is true that he does distinguishes Elohim, Yahweh and Michael in this talk as three separate beings.  It is often presumed that our Father in heaven has a father, perhaps Brigham thought that the Father of our God was Elohim.  Either way, he clearly taught that we have nothing to do with Elohim.  The underlined parts are absolutely false doctrine.  Adam is not our God.  I do not pray to Adam, he is not the God with which I have to do. 

 

Journal of Discourses 1:50-51 (April 9, 1852)

Link to comment

Adam was named after his Father, that is who Brigham Young was talking about!

D&C 27:11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;

His name was Michael and he was given the title the same as his Father's, similar to Abram and Jacob given titles.

"In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:

'We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.' "

"ALLEGED" is the operative word. Brigham Young's teachings have been twisted then alleged to have been taught by him!

 

I rarely say this so bluntly but that is completely wrong.

 

Brigham didn't allegedly teach the Adam-God doctrine, he absolutely is recorded as having taught it on numerous occasions.

And I don't know where you got the idea that Adam's Father was named Adam...that's a new one, especially since Adam didn't have a father except for Heavenly Father.  And if you are saying that God's name is also Adam, well, that is not supported by any scripture or teaching except for the Adam-God teachings.

Link to comment

Daniel 7: 13-14

"

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

 

Yes, Adam. The Ancient of Days is Adam.  Not Adam's Father, but Adam.

 

"The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation.

He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as in Genesis 1:26, 27, 28.  He had dominion given him over every living creature.
He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel: he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven.
Priesthood Everlasting
The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning
of days or end of years.  The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven,
it is by Adam’s authority.
Adam the Oldest Man
Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man.  He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides
over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave
this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion.  Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that
which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of
the human family."  Joseph Smith TPJS 157.

 

Link to comment

"

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

 

Yes, Adam. The Ancient of Days is Adam.  Not Adam's Father, but Adam.

 

"The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation.

He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as in Genesis 1:26, 27, 28.  He had dominion given him over every living creature.

He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel: he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven.

Priesthood Everlasting

The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning

of days or end of years.  The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven,

it is by Adam’s authority.

Adam the Oldest Man

Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man.  He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides

over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave

this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion.  Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that

which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of

the human family."  Joseph Smith TPJS 157.

And how does Brigham Young' statement differ so much than this, other than some emphasis by Brigham Young on Adam's position? "When they (the keys of the Priesthood) are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority."

"Presides over the spirits of all men.."

Sounds like a God in a sense to me. Adam is not bench warmer in the events of this Earth.

Give Brigham Young some slack.

Link to comment

I gained a testimony of brigham young when reading this talk he gave over the pulpit in general conference

 

PRIESTHOOD VIEWS ON SLAVERY AND THE BLACKS, Brigham Young

 

The principle of slavery I understand, at least I have self-confidence enough and confidence enough in God to believe I do. I believe still further that a great many others understand it as I do. A great portion of this community have been instructed and have applied their minds to it, and as far as they have, they agree precisely in the principles of slavery. My remarks in the first place will be upon the cause of the introduction of slavery. Long ago mama Eve, our good old mother Eve, partook of the forbidden fruit and this made a slave of her. Adam hated very much to have her taken out of the garden of Eden, and now our old daddy says, I believe I will eat of the fruit and become a slave, too. This was the first introduction of slavery upon this earth; and there has not been a son or daughter of Adam from that day to this but what were slaves in the true sense of the word. That slavery will continue until there is a people raised up upon the face of the earth who will contend for righteous principles, whowill not only believe in, but operate with every power and faculty given to them to help to establish the Kingdom of God, to overcome the devil, and drive him from the earth; then will this curse be removed. This was the starting point of slavery.

Again, after Adam and Eve had partook of the curse, we find they had two sons, Cain and Abel, but which was the oldest I cannot positively say; but this I know: Cain was given more to evil practices than Abel, but whether he was the oldest or not matters not to me. Adam was commanded to sacrifice and offer up his offerings to God that placed him into the garden of Eden. Through the faith and obedience of Abel to his Heavenly Father, Cain become jealous of him, and he laid a plan to obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to Father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he took it into his heart to put Abel [out] of his mortal existence. After the deed was done, the Lord inquired for Abel and made Cain own what he had done with him. Now, says the grandfather, I will not destroy the seed of Michael and his wife, and Cain, I will not kill you nor suffer anyone else to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that mark? You will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know: when the mark was put upon Cain, Abel's children were in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessingsof the Priesthood, nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the Priesthood, until the redemption of the earth.

If there never was a prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ [that] spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of old Cain. I [3] know they are; I know that they cannot bear rule in the Priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them until the residue of the posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed, and hold the keys of the Priesthood until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth and from Michael's seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in remembrance and the time come when the curse should be wiped off. Now, then, in the Kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of Priesthood. Why? Because they are the true eternal principles the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it? Men cannot, the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off; but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have until the time comes that says he will have it taken away. That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more.

In the Kingdom of God on the earth the Africans cannot hold one particle of power in government. The subjects, the rightful servants of the residue of the children of Adam, and the residue of the children through the benign influence of the spirit of the Lord have the privilege of seeing to the posterity of Cain; inasmuch as it is the Lord's will they should receive the spirit of God by baptism, and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power. You talk of the dark skin. I never saw a white man on earth. I have seen persons whose hair came pretty nigh [4] being white, but to talk about white skins, it is something entirely unknown, though some skins are fairer than others. Look at the black eye and the jet black hair we often see upon men and women who are called white; there is no such things as white folks. We are the children of Adam, who receive the blessings, and that is enough for us if we are not quite white. But let me tell you further, let my seed mingle with the seed of Cain, and that brings the curse upon me and upon my generations; we will reap the same rewards with Cain.

In the Priesthood I will tell you what it will do. Were the children of God to mingle their seed with the seed of Cain it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the priesthood upon themselves but they entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man in an unguarded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man, woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoning for the sin. Would this be to curse them? No, it would be a blessing to them; it would do them good that they might be saved with their brethren. A man would shudder should they hear us talk about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, although the true principles of it are not understood..... ...I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man. In the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abusing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants.... ...suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the Black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and Kingdom, [7] and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain, the Church must go to destruction; we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed. Therefore, I will not consent for one moment to have an African dictate me or any brethren with regard to church or state government...

 

Removed for drive by race baiting

Link to comment

There is no point in even mentioning Brigham's attitudes here without pointing out that they were in no way original to him.  He is expressing a cultural attitude with a long history, though he did not know that the history did not go back to the original authors, but was developed to justify the slave trade.

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7674

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Link to comment

It seems to me that there were five major principles upon which Brigham established his prophetic reputation:

1. Plural marriage

2. Adam - God

3. Blood Atonement

4. Priesthood ban

5. Co-operative (socialistic) economy

 

It appears that the modern church has abandoned every one of them.

 

Was Brigham a prophet? Well, not in the "Joseph" sense of the word. He even said that he was not Joseph's successor as prophet but described himself instead as a "steady hand". For me, I now see Brigham as I see every other one of our presidents - as men sitting in the judgement seat keeping it warm for the next "Joseph".

Link to comment

It seems to me that there were five major principles upon which Brigham established his prophetic reputation:

1. Plural marriage

2. Adam - God

3. Blood Atonement

4. Priesthood ban

5. Co-operative (socialistic) economy

 

It appears that the modern church has abandoned every one of them.

 

Was Brigham a prophet? Well, not in the "Joseph" sense of the word. He even said that he was not Joseph's successor as prophet but described himself instead as a "steady hand". For me, I now see Brigham as I see every other one of our presidents - as men sitting in the judgement seat keeping it warm for the next "Joseph".

 

Do you know how many of the nearly 10,000 pages of sermons in the Journal of Discourses are dedicated to these topics? I think you'd find the amount of emphasis placed on those quotes are not balanced with the vast majority of the other teachings of Brigham. 

 

We repeat them and re-quote them because they are unique, strange, and legitimately troubling. The problem is, the balance of what Brigham Young taught - even within that framework - generally goes by unknown. If my life was judged by passing around only the most unfortunate and proven-in-hindsight-to-be-way-off statements and thoughts I'd made, it would be very hard for anyone to make an informed decision about the full depth of my life and beliefs.

 

This is why I think it's important for people wishing to understand BY to begin reading the Arrington and Turner bios as a double feature. Pretty sure this combo gives a very good overview of BY and his multifaceted angles. The context given by the bios is very helpful then in returning to the JD, and reading through his speeches. Of course you're going to find those oft-repeated nuggets, and they're not going to sit will. There's no reason they have to. But I think you'd also be exposed to far more nuanced view of Brigham than the popular idea that all he cared about or talked about in life was theoretically killing Apostates, oppressing blacks, worshiping Adam, and repeatedly getting married.

 

The real Brigham Young is far more interesting and nuanced than either of the extreme, "BRIGHAM WAS NOTHING BUT A BIGOTED TYRANT!" or "PRESIDENT YOUNG IS A PERFECT ROLE MODEL COMPLETELY DOCTRINALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHURCH TODAY!" models.

Link to comment

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Brigham at all. But we cannot continue to claim he was right at the same time as claiming that our modern leadership are right, especially when they say Brigham was wrong.

We've got to start admitting a spade is a spade is a spade.

 

I don't really buy this "read everything else he said in order to get a balance" approach. To give an extreme example - if a lifeguard who has saved many lives is discovered to be a murderer, does that mitigate his guilt? Therefore we can't say that what Brigham taught doesn't matter because he also taught loads of other stuff which was orthodox.

Link to comment

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Brigham at all. But we cannot continue to claim he was right at the same time as claiming that our modern leadership are right, especially when they say Brigham was wrong.

We've got to start admitting a spade is a spade is a spade.

 

 

I agree with this.   Even the current church leaders agree with this (and other past ones who just haven't spoken out).

 

I honestly feel that even Brigham didn't think he was a prophet in the sense that Joseph was.  "The Prophet" was still speaking of Joseph Smith and Brigham respected this.  

 

I remember reading that calling the president of the church the Prophet didn't start up again until David O. McKay (prior to this they were mainly referred to as "President").  Has anyone else heard or read this?

Link to comment

And how does Brigham Young' statement differ so much than this, other than some emphasis by Brigham Young on Adam's position? "When they (the keys of the Priesthood) are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority."

"Presides over the spirits of all men.."

Sounds like a God in a sense to me. Adam is not bench warmer in the events of this Earth.

Give Brigham Young some slack.

 

The underlined part is precisely where it differs.   You say it so nonchalantly, as if it is no big deal that Brigham essentially removed our Heavenly Father as our God and the center of our worship and put Adam in His position.  To hear you say that it is "not much" of a difference is astounding.  Maybe you missed it, Brigham said that Adam is the only God with which we have to do.  Are you really going to continue to stand behind and defend that statement?

Link to comment

I agree with this.   Even the current church leaders agree with this (and other past ones who just haven't spoken out).

 

I honestly feel that even Brigham didn't think he was a prophet in the sense that Joseph was.  "The Prophet" was still speaking of Joseph Smith and Brigham respected this.  

 

I remember reading that calling the president of the church the Prophet didn't start up again until David O. McKay (prior to this they were mainly referred to as "President").  Has anyone else heard or read this?

 

Yes, I read this somewhere too. Can't remember where just this minute.

I think it is much more accurate to describe the earthly leader of the church as president rather than prophet. We always have a president, but prophets come along once in a while IMO. The last one we had was Joseph. The next one...............

Link to comment
Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Brigham at all.
 
Then you're more charitable than me :) I couldn't put on the "at all" qualifier.
 
But we cannot continue to claim he was right at the same time as claiming that our modern leadership are right, especially when they say Brigham was wrong.
 
I'm certainly not one to advocate for what you're objecting against.
 
We've got to start admitting a spade is a spade is a spade.
 
In what, that Brigham Young likely got some big things fantastically wrong? I think most are quite comfortable with this spade.
 
I don't really buy this "read everything else he said in order to get a balance" approach. To give an extreme example - if a lifeguard who has saved many lives is discovered to be a murderer, does that mitigate his guilt? Therefore we can't say that what Brigham taught doesn't matter because he also taught loads of other stuff which was orthodox
 
There's a difference between mitigating guilt, and acknowledging that someone is more than a sum total of his faults. Those whose lives were saved - and their family and friends and descendants - are very grateful for the good that he did, and can't deny it. Doesn't mean they won't also condem the terrible things done - they may even wish their lives had been saved by someone they could be more whole-heartedly proud of. But it didn't change the fact that yes, their lives had been saved.
 
Likewise, it is hard to deny that many of the motivations that led to what we see now as some unfortunate and disappointing beliefs and policies were also key motivators behind actions and mindsets that led in very substantial ways to the survival of the Mormons and Church as a people. We may not like many of his methods, but for those of us who are incredibly blessed by the Church today, and where it has come, there is a debt to acknowledge to Brigham Young. In fact, I truly believe a key aspect of the furthering and solidifying of key aspects of our theology and practice is in direct response for having to deal with and grapple with some key aspects of BY's speculations.
 
If you haven't yet, please read my thoughts after reading Turner's bio of Brigham Young here. I still stand by my summary conclusion:

 
While Jesus was sent as a presentation and revelation of the God Who Is, I suggest that Brigham presented a contrasting revelation of the God who the religious world actually claimed to love and worship and adore. While providing extraordinary, necessary, and perhaps miraculous temporal and practical services to the Church and its members, I find the strength in the broad strokes of Brigham’s spiritual ministry to be that he created a sharp contrast which made the ministry of Jesus shine even brighter. His life, most likely unknown to him, was a living parable. In a fascinating way, Brigham’s life and theology paved the way in later years for a strong and lasting reformation of the LDS relationship with and view of the attributes of God.
 
We can read the Old Testament and declare, authentically and rightfully,  “God did great and wonderful things,” note some inspiring tender moments, and still be incredibly disturbed at the implications of God’s nature based on his actions, leading it to be hard to love and have Faith in God as he is presented there. While I do believe in God, I believe that a progression of light and knowledge that has come into the world has revealed the inaccuracies, misunderstandings , and misrepresentations of key aspects of His personality and attributes as understood and expressed by the ancients.
 
I believe that Scriptures and Prophets are inconvenient by design. I believe what we learn from our interaction and confrontation with their lives and teachings is generally far more beneficial and conducive to growth and coming to know God than the correlated sum of their words and teachings alone.
 
The existence and daily lives of the first pair of true Modern Prophets – Joseph and Brigham – messily and inconveniently demand that we – Mormons as well as those who are not – confront and revisit our perceptions and paradigms of the Divine.

 

 

Link to comment

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Brigham at all. But we cannot continue to claim he was right at the same time as claiming that our modern leadership are right, especially when they say Brigham was wrong.

We've got to start admitting a spade is a spade is a spade.

 

I don't really buy this "read everything else he said in order to get a balance" approach. To give an extreme example - if a lifeguard who has saved many lives is discovered to be a murderer, does that mitigate his guilt? Therefore we can't say that what Brigham taught doesn't matter because he also taught loads of other stuff which was orthodox.

Extreme example indeed. "To what shall I liken it that ye may understand?" as the D&C has it. Rather than an extreme metaphor, how about an appropriate metaphor? How about something with a bit more discernment. How about judging Brigham Young as we might like to be judged? I certainly don't appreciate it when I'm characterized as the sum total of my mistakes. Indeed, in such situations, I feel as though I am being terribly misjudged.

Just off hand, I rather think Brigham deserves some credit for his demonstrated service and loyalty to Joseph Smith. The widely affirmed stories of his assuming the mantle of the prophet in a way that emphatically resolved the issue for the majority of the LDS. His demonstrated leadership skills in the migration and gathering of the Saints. There used to be a very good essay at FAIR about Brigham's subsequent response to the Reformation style preaching. The essay reports that he decided that you couldn't fill a thimble with the souls that could be saved by preaching hellfire, and he never did it again.

I remain very impressed with Brigham's teaching of the afterlife. And, thanks to Nibley's essays, very impressed by his teaching on Education, the environment, war, and leadership, topics, I notice, that have considerably more relevance today, even urgency, come to think of it, than a widespread, pre-LDS misreading of Noah's Curse that Brigham repeats. Brigham himself waffled at times on Adam God.

Plural marriage. Gone but not forgotten. Brigham's legacy amounts to what people find and value. When I'm gone, I hope to be a bit more than a short bullet list of mistakes. One of my favorite essays is Nibley's on Brigham and the Enemy.

"We need not go to our neighbors for sin, to palliate all our crimes, for we ourselves have plenty of it; we need not crave weakness from our fellow man, we have our own share of it; it is for us to trust in the Lord, and endeavor to deliver ourselves from the effects of sin . . . to become friends of God, that we may thereby become friends of sinners, and receive a great reward in a day to come."

"Never try to destroy a man. It is our mission to save the people, not to destroy them. The least, the most inferior spirit now upon the earth, in our capacity, is worth worlds."

"There is one principle I wish to urge upon the Saints in a way that it may remain with them—that is, to understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are."201

"If brethren and sisters are overtaken in fault, your hearts should be filled with kindness—with brotherly, angelic feeling—to overlook their faults as far as possible."202

"The doctrine which we have embraced takes away the stony hearts."203 "We are to have compassion one upon another, to look upon each other as we would wish others to look upon us, and to remember that we are frail mortal beings, and that we can be changed for the better only by the Gospel of salvation."204

It is for God to judge, condemn, punish, reward, give life and take it, but not for men. He will forgive whom he will forgive, but of us he required to forgive all men. "If others ought to do right, we more. Be full of love and compassion to your fellow-beings, full of kindness, such as human beings can possess, for that is our business."205 "I am very thankful that it is not our province, in our present condition, to judge the world; it if were, we would ruin everything. We have not sufficient wisdom, our minds are not filled with the knowledge and power of God; the spirit needs to contend with the flesh a little more."206

"We must . . . learn to bring the whole man—all the passions, sympathies, and feelings in subjection to the spirit. Our spirits are warring against the flesh, and the flesh against our spirits; and all we have to do is to let the spirits that have come from our Father in heaven reign triumphant."207 Meantime, "because of our weaknesses, . . . we shall have to bear with one another until we become stronger and wiser."208 "All of us are in the hands of that God. We are all His children. We are his sons and daughters naturally, and by the principles of eternal life. We are brethren and sisters."209

And so forth...

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1094&index=9

The Brigham Young priesthood manual remains my favorite so far. It came after a decade of really weak manuals that we actually recycled and used again. The mind behind the quotes and the life is fascinating. A man of his time, in many respects, especially the racism which was emphatically not his creation but a cultural inheritance that he passed on.

Those who focus exclusively on such things get all the benefit that such an exclusive negative focus bestows. The law of the harvest operates in study as in labor. But I think there is far more to notice and value in Brigham Young.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Link to comment

For me, evidence that Brigham was God's prophet is the way he faced down an invasionary force comprising a full third of the entire U.S. military of the day and held them off long enough for cooler heads to prevail and for negotiations to be effected.

 

Soldiers who had been boasting of their intent to hang Mormon leaders and rape Mormon women grew a bit less blustery, I daresay, after being forced to winter over at a burned-out Fort Bridger.

Link to comment

The underlined part is precisely where it differs.   You say it so nonchalantly, as if it is no big deal that Brigham essentially removed our Heavenly Father as our God and the center of our worship and put Adam in His position.  To hear you say that it is "not much" of a difference is astounding.  Maybe you missed it, Brigham said that Adam is the only God with which we have to do.  Are you really going to continue to stand behind and defend that statement?

You need to give that statement some more thought until you can see what Brigham meant by that, with God's help to help you.

 

Do you somehow think Brigham didn't understand the fact that Jesus is a person who is God?  The only God with which we have to do? 

 

Every person who is God is the only God with which we have to do because we have nothing to do with any person who is not God.

 

Rethink your thoughts about what Brigham Young meant while asking God to help you understand him.

Link to comment

You need to give that statement some more thought until you can see what Brigham meant by that, with God's help to help you.

 

Do you somehow think Brigham didn't understand the fact that Jesus is a person who is God?  The only God with which we have to do? 

 

Every person who is God is the only God with which we have to do because we have nothing to do with any person who is not God.

 

Rethink your thoughts about what Brigham Young meant while asking God to help you understand him.

 

Trust me, I have given that statement more thought than it ever deserved. 

 

Christ is a member of the Godhead  = Doctrine

Christ is the only God with which we have to do = False doctrine

Adam is a member of the Godhead = False doctrine

Adam is the only God with which we have to do = As false as it gets doctrine.

 

I have nothing to do with any God who is not a part of the Godhead.  Adam is not my God or your God.  Perhaps you should be the one who thinks about what Brigham taught, because according to Brigham, all of your worship and prayer should be to Adam only.  Praying to Adam would be sacrilege.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

Trust me, I have given that statement more thought than it ever deserved. 

 

Christ is a member of the Godhead  = Doctrine

Yes, it is doctrine because it has been taught.  And it also happens to be true doctrine, or a true teaching, too.

 

Christ is the only God with which we have to do = False doctrine

God = a kind of being, the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, and we are his children.  Thus all of us are God, and the only God with which we have to do.

 

Adam is a member of the Godhead = False doctrine

But he is God, though, just as all of us are God (the same kind of being as our Father), with Adam being the Father of the whole race of "God" on this planet.  And he is also the Father of Jesus Christ, through Mary.

 

Adam is the only God with which we have to do = As false as it gets doctrine.

You still don't seem to understand what "God" is.  Partly, yes, but your knowledge of us is not perfected.  Just keep learning, bro.

 

I have nothing to do with any God who is not a part of the Godhead.

The father who gave birth to you through your mother on Earth is also God (the same kind of being as our Father in heaven) and you have something to do with him, and her, too.  In fact, all of us trace back to Adam and Eve, and Adam traces back to his Father.  So think some more about who you have something to do with.

 

Adam is not my God or your God.

He is the same kind of being we are, and the same kind of being as our Father in heaven.

 

Perhaps you should be the one who thinks about what Brigham taught, because according to Brigham, all of your worship and prayer should be to Adam only. Praying to Adam would be sacrilege.

No, not only.  Brigham never taught what you seem to think he taught when you wrote this.  I hope you've changed your mind or will change your mind soon once you understand what he meant when he taught what he taught.

Link to comment

Christ is a member of the Godhead  = Doctrine

Christ is the only God with which we have to do = False doctrine

Adam is a member of the Godhead = False doctrine

Adam is the only God with which we have to do = As false as it gets doctrine.

 

I have nothing to do with any God who is not a part of the Godhead.  Adam is not my God or your God.  Perhaps you should be the one who thinks about what Brigham taught, because according to Brigham, all of your worship and prayer should be to Adam only.  Praying to Adam would be sacrilege.

 

I have never issued a CFR, but other than another apostles opinion, what makes these statements true?

Brigham said one thing, SWK/BRM said another.  What reference actually shows that any of these doctrines is demonstrably true or false?

Link to comment

So you would have no problem standing up in front of your congregation and teaching that Adam is the only God with which we have to do and that he is the direct father of Jesus?  I would love to be there when you give the above explanation to your bishop in defense of your teaching. 

 

God = a kind of being, the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, and we are his children.  Thus all of us are God, and the only God with which we have to do.

 

I see, all the glory be to us!

 

But he is God, though, just as all of us are God (the same kind of being as our Father), with Adam being the Father of the whole race of "God" on this planet.  And he is also the Father of Jesus Christ, through Mary.

 

Oh good heavens!  What a disservice you are doing for the church by promulgating teachings which have been disavowed!  You don't stop there though, you go on to teach new doctrines that we are all Gods (collectively, the only God with which we have to do).

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...