Adam God Theory

[JLHPROF]

So is it your understanding that, according to BY, Jehovah is Adam's Spiritual Father and Eloheim is a separate God and is not Adam's spiritual father?

How Jehovah fits into the equation is always the harder question.

 

Isn't that the truth.  The way I see it there are two possibilities, but neither were ever confirmed by any revelation OR even by prophetic teaching by Brigham Young.

 

Option 1 - Jehovah is Adam's Father (his Heavenly Father) and Eloheim is his Grandfather.

 

Option 2 - Jehovah is Adam's Savior (just as our Savior becomes our Father - see Alma) and Eloheim is Adam's Father (his Heavenly Father).

 

Some would call the entire Adam-God teachings speculation, but I disagree.  However, THESE two options are pure speculation as either will fit with Adam as our Heavenly Father but neither has been confirmed in teachings.

[JLHPROF]

To JLHPROF: Sorry i shouldn't post from my phone but i'd like to hear more about how Your model works and how it harmonises with available scripture.

Do You see different Dispensations as being under different divine beinga, e.g. Adam mostly under Elokim, Moses mostly under YHWH, Jesus under Adam/Heavenly Father, current dispensation under Jesus???

 

That would make for one VERY long thread.  Honestly, if you just read what Brigham and the other prophets taught on Adam being our Heavenly Father who was operating under the jurisdiction of Eloheim (the Head God) and Jehovah (either his Father or Savior) it makes perfect sense and fits with scripture, the temple, and the teachings of our early prophets.

 

It stops fitting when around the turn of the 1900s a few GA's decided to advance the theory that the pre-mortal Jesus Christ and Jehovah were the same being, a teaching I find unscriptural.  Christ is NOW advanced to Jehovah (see D&C 110) but prior to having a physical body he was as subject to those people with bodies as any other spirit (which Joseph Smith taught).  Jehovah was not.

 

As far as dispensations go - Joseph taught:

 

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.

 

In other words, the 7 heads of dispensation will turn over their keys and dispensations to Heavenly Father/Adam who is presides over ALL men, who will then bestow his inheritance on his heir, our Savior, just as promised.

[Ahab]

I find it troubling that many of what Brigham Young taught is no longer accepted today. I mean he was a prophet for crying out loud. Polygamy, Adam-God, blacks priesthood band, blood atonement. None of those are applicable today. How could a prophet of God be so wrong on so many issues? And how can we trust other prophets that they aren't making mistakes as well?

Prophets have always been misunderstood or misrepresented by some people, and Brigham is no exception. Some people correctly understand what he meant and see the truth in his teachings, and some people don't. God has helped me to see how his teachings are in harmony with the teachings from other prophets of God.

As a help to you I can tell you that what Brigham taught was in harmony with what most people understand from reading Genesis. Brigham just gave some more details about Adam because most people, including most Christians, don't know or understand very much about Adam. They don't ponder to think very much about how he is a Father to all of us born on this planet through him, or how we are more than just our physical body. In fact, most people just think of Adam as someone who sinned soon after God created him, along with the rest of the story in Genesis, as though he had no life before God created him. And he isn't very highly understood or appreciated by many who are LDS either.

So Brigham was just trying to share more about Adam and how prominent his position is for all of us.

[Brian 2.0]

Prophets have always been misunderstood or misrepresented by some people, and Brigham is no exception. Some people correctly understand what he meant and see the truth in his teachings, and some people don't. God has helped me to see how his teachings are in harmony with the teachings from other prophets of God.

As a help to you I can tell you that what Brigham taught was in harmony with what most people understand from reading Genesis. Brigham just gave some more details about Adam because most people, including most Christians, don't know or understand very much about Adam. They don't ponder to think very much about how he is a Father to all of us born on this planet through him, or how we are more than just our physical body. In fact, most people just think of Adam as someone who sinned soon after God created him, along with the rest of the story in Genesis, as though he had no life before God created him. And he isn't very highly understood or appreciated by many who are LDS either.

So Brigham was just trying to share more about Adam and how prominent his position is for all of us.

So do you simply discount all the MANY, CLEARLY WORDED statements from Brigham Young and other prohohets that are clearly not in harmony with current teachings as misquotes or transcription errors so everything can fit into a nice and clean worldview where prophets don't ever conflict with each other?

[K-2]

Ahab, why did Bruce R. McConkie write in his February 19, 1981 letter to Eugene England that Brigham Young contradicted himself and the scriptures in teaching Adam-God? Are you more enlightened regarding the subject than Elder McConkie was?

[ERayR]

Ahab, why did Bruce R. McConkie write in his February 19, 1981 letter to Eugene England that Brigham Young contradicted himself and the scriptures in teaching Adam-God? Are you more enlightened regarding the subject than Elder McConkie was?

 

Don't know how enlightened was Elder McConkie?

[K-2]

Apparently not enough to see that what Brigham Young taught regarding Adam-God was in harmony with what other prophets taught.

[ERayR]

Apparently not enough to see that what Brigham Young taught regarding Adam-God was in harmony with what other prophets taught.

So you are just guessing.

[K-2]

Bruce R. McConkie claimed to have received revelation that Adam-God is false. (I'll post the exact quote later when I'm not so busy.) Brigham Young claimed to have received revelation that it is true. They can't both be right.

[Teancum]

It is quite simple.

Brigham Young, the second president and prophet of the LDS church taught Adam is our God .

An honest review of what he had to say about this shows this to be true.

The Adam senior/Adam junior is simply BS.

So either Brigham was right and the LDS prophets today are wrong or Brigham, who we proclaims as a Prophet of God did not know who the heck God is and taught false doctrine.

What a dilemma. IMO this is one of the most problematic problems (among oh so many) for fhe LDS Church truth claims .

[Brian 2.0]

It is quite simple.

Brigham Young, the second president and prophet of the LDS church taught Adam is our God .

An honest review of what he had to say about this shows this to be true.

The Adam senior/Adam junior is simply BS.

So either Brigham was right and the LDS prophets today are wrong or Brigham, who we proclaims as a Prophet of God did not know who the heck God is and taught false doctrine.

What a dilemma. IMO this is one of the most problematic problems (among oh so many) for fhe LDS Church truth claims .

 

It's simple.  Brigham Young was just speaking his opinions as a man, and not Prophet, when his dictated the doctrine and had it instituted in the temple ceremony.  

[K-2]

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me— namely that Adam is our Father and God.
(Brigham Young, sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873)


One of the problems in this mission involved what is known as the Adam-God doctrine. "In the second mission-wide conference," Elder McConkie noted, "I was talking with some power and fluency about this doctrine, explaining that these interpretations were false and defining how and where the Church stood on Adam and on the members of the Godhead. In the midst of this discussion, under circumstances where I was far more fluent and expressive than my normal capacity allows, it suddenly seemed to me as though a pillar of light extended up from me endlessly and the clear, unmistakable impression came from the Spirit of the Lord that what I was teaching was true, that the interpretations made by various people of Brigham Young's quotations was totally false, and that if I felt so inclined I was perfectly at liberty to speak in the Lord's name as to the truths I was then declaring. I did not so speak, reasoning that under the circumstances there had been so much sensational and unusual matter presented to these particular missionaries that I did not want to say something outside the usual bounds. As I look back, it seems to me that this experience was given primarily for my benefit and enlightenment." (The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book 2003, pgs. 366-367)

[Coreyb]

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me— namely that Adam is our Father and God.

(Brigham Young, sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873)

One of the problems in this mission involved what is known as the Adam-God doctrine. "In the second mission-wide conference," Elder McConkie noted, "I was talking with some power and fluency about this doctrine, explaining that these interpretations were false and defining how and where the Church stood on Adam and on the members of the Godhead. In the midst of this discussion, under circumstances where I was far more fluent and expressive than my normal capacity allows, it suddenly seemed to me as though a pillar of light extended up from me endlessly and the clear, unmistakable impression came from the Spirit of the Lord that what I was teaching was true, that the interpretations made by various people of Brigham Young's quotations was totally false, and that if I felt so inclined I was perfectly at liberty to speak in the Lord's name as to the truths I was then declaring. I did not so speak, reasoning that under the circumstances there had been so much sensational and unusual matter presented to these particular missionaries that I did not want to say something outside the usual bounds. As I look back, it seems to me that this experience was given primarily for my benefit and enlightenment." (The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book 2003, pgs. 366-367)

Very interesting. I have never read about this experience before. The mission didn't happen to be in France did it? To JLHPROFs earlier point, you are still just stuck with deciding who's revelation is right, or accepting a God who gives contradictory revelations.

[Ahab]

So do you simply discount all the MANY, CLEARLY WORDED statements from Brigham Young and other prohohets that are clearly not in harmony with current teachings as misquotes or transcription errors so everything can fit into a nice and clean worldview where prophets don't ever conflict with each other?

You don't think that I'm going to think that what Brigham taught was not in harmony with what other propbets taught just because you think so, do ye? Or do ye? I know you think that what he taught is not in harmony with what other prophets taught, and I know some other people do too, and you and those other people are the people I was talking about when I said what I said about how there are some people who misunderstand and misrepresent what prophets of God have said, but that is not a good reason for me to misunderstand or misrepresent what prophets of God have said, and I have tried to help straighten out those misunderstandings and misrepresentations before.

And I refuse to get on that bandwagon with you!

[Ahab]

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me— namely that Adam is our Father and God.

(Brigham Young, sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873)

One of the problems in this mission involved what is known as the Adam-God doctrine. "In the second mission-wide conference," Elder McConkie noted, "I was talking with some power and fluency about this doctrine, explaining that these interpretations were false and defining how and where the Church stood on Adam and on the members of the Godhead. In the midst of this discussion, under circumstances where I was far more fluent and expressive than my normal capacity allows, it suddenly seemed to me as though a pillar of light extended up from me endlessly and the clear, unmistakable impression came from the Spirit of the Lord that what I was teaching was true, that the interpretations made by various people of Brigham Young's quotations was totally false, and that if I felt so inclined I was perfectly at liberty to speak in the Lord's name as to the truths I was then declaring. I did not so speak, reasoning that under the circumstances there had been so much sensational and unusual matter presented to these particular missionaries that I did not want to say something outside the usual bounds. As I look back, it seems to me that this experience was given primarily for my benefit and enlightenment." (The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book 2003, pgs. 366-367)

... Reflections of a Son...

You might want to look for better evidence than that if you think that's evidence of what Bruce, his Father, thought.

[Ahab]

Very interesting. I have never read about this experience before. The mission didn't happen to be in France did it? To JLHPROFs earlier point, you are still just stuck with deciding who's revelation is right, or accepting a God who gives contradictory revelations.

... or the option that I prefer: asking God to help me see how the teachings of his prophets are in harmony.

[JLHPROF]

... or the option that I prefer: asking God to help me see how the teachings of his prophets are in harmony.

 

That's quite an assumption.  Brigham said Adam was Heavenly Father, the father of our spirits and Jesus Christ.  Elder McConkie (and Pres. Kimball) said this was NOT true and was a heresy.

 

I don't see how that kind of difference can be harmonized.

[ERayR]

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me— namely that Adam is our Father and God.

(Brigham Young, sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873)

One of the problems in this mission involved what is known as the Adam-God doctrine. "In the second mission-wide conference," Elder McConkie noted, "I was talking with some power and fluency about this doctrine, explaining that these interpretations were false and defining how and where the Church stood on Adam and on the members of the Godhead. In the midst of this discussion, under circumstances where I was far more fluent and expressive than my normal capacity allows, it suddenly seemed to me as though a pillar of light extended up from me endlessly and the clear, unmistakable impression came from the Spirit of the Lord that what I was teaching was true, that the interpretations made by various people of Brigham Young's quotations was totally false, and that if I felt so inclined I was perfectly at liberty to speak in the Lord's name as to the truths I was then declaring. I did not so speak, reasoning that under the circumstances there had been so much sensational and unusual matter presented to these particular missionaries that I did not want to say something outside the usual bounds. As I look back, it seems to me that this experience was given primarily for my benefit and enlightenment." (The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book 2003, pgs. 366-367)

 

I don't think this says what you are attributing to it.  Note Elder McConkie does not say the doctrine is wrong only that the interpretations are wrong.

[Ahab]

That's quite an assumption. Brigham said Adam was Heavenly Father, the father of our spirits and Jesus Christ. Elder McConkie (and Pres. Kimball) said this was NOT true and was a heresy.

I don't see how that kind of difference can be harmonized.

I'll give you a few pointers that may help you to see the harmony, but look at what they wrote instead of a misrepresentation of what they said and ask God to help you, too.

First, Adam is the Father, or to be more politically correct "a" Father, to all of us born on this planet. Our bodies only? No, because our spirits are in and part of our bodies too, so also of our spirits. And Jesus too? Yes, even Jesus through Eve, and Mary.

[Ahab]

That's quite an assumption. Brigham said Adam was Heavenly Father, the father of our spirits and Jesus Christ. Elder McConkie (and Pres. Kimball) said this was NOT true and was a heresy.

I don't see how that kind of difference can be harmonized.

I'll give you a few pointers that may help you to see the harmony, but look at what they wrote instead of a misrepresentation of what they said and ask God to help you, too.

First, Adam is the Father, or to be more politically correct "a" Father, to all of us born on this planet. Our bodies only? No, because our spirits are in and part of our bodies too, so also of our spirits. And Jesus too? Yes, even Jesus through Eve, and Mary.

[JLHPROF]

I'll give you a few pointers that may help you to see the harmony, but look at what they wrote instead of a misrepresentation of what they said and ask God to help you, too.

First, Adam is the Father, or to be more politically correct "a" Father, to all of us born on this planet. Our bodies only? No, because our spirits are in and part of our bodies too, so also of our spirits. And Jesus too? Yes, even Jesus through Eve, and Mary.

 

That isn't harmonizing doctrine.  That is twisting teachings to make them harmonize.  That is NOT what Brigham taught.

If twisting the actual teachings of the prophets to make them match is how God helps you harmonize them, I'd say there's a problem.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's simple.  Brigham Young was just speaking his opinions as a man, and not Prophet, when his dictated the doctrine and had it instituted in the temple ceremony.  

Well, since no one repeated this and it was later condemned as not doctrine, I have no problem that he was wrong and just giving his opinion. I think a solid case can be made for this.

 

 Also, non of our prophets are infallible.

 

The other aspect is how serious is this in the grand scheme of things? To me it really is no big deal.

 

Another aspect is that we only have what BY allegedly taught. BY said that if he could review a talk given and gave his approval that that would be doctrine. Is there any evidence that he reviewed what he allegedly spoke?

Edited January 19, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ERayR]

That's quite an assumption.  Brigham said Adam was Heavenly Father, the father of our spirits and Jesus Christ.  Elder McConkie (and Pres. Kimball) said this was NOT true and was a heresy.

 

I don't see how that kind of difference can be harmonized.

 

Note my post # 118

[iamse7en]

It's tough to have a discussion with people who have not read all of Brigham's teachings on Adam-God in full context. I was one of those people who initially thought, "there's no way Brigham believed that," then it became "okay, he had a few weird teachings on it, but he contradicted himself at other times," then I accepted Elden Watson's 2-Adam theory, which conveniently uses only references that could potentially fit his theory and ignores the host of other references that destroy his theory.

 

All of those are wrong. Brigham did not contradict himself. This doctrine is confusing to newcomers/correlated members because certain ideas are pounded in their head that were not believed by 19th Century Mormons, e.g. Jesus is Jehovah or Elohim refers to only one specific person. Look at all the references to Jehovah in 19th Century Mormonism and you'll see it almost always refers to God the Father. And since there are so many titles, people get confused. Boyd Kirkland summarized:

 

Thus we see the flexibility with which Brigham Young used the divine names. To recap: (1) He never referred to Jesus as Jehovah. (2) He referred to God the father variously as Jehovah, Elohim, Michael, Adam, Ancient of Days, I Am, and other Old Testament epithets. (3) He also referred to Gods superior to God the Father as Elohim and Jehovah. (Boyd Kirkland, "The Development of the Mormon Jehovah Doctrine, 1830-1916", p. 9)

 

Since these titles can refer to different people at different times, it can be confusing (much like we would get confused if we used only titles to refer to specific people, e.g. Bishop, Stake President, especially when the Bishop can become a Stake President). As for the temple characters, Brigham Young, the man commissioned by Joseph "to organize and systematize all these ceremonies," clarified in this reference (color-coding to make it clear):

 

Elohim, Yahovah and Michael were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth and Michael became Adam. (Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith Journal, 6/17/1871)

 

In other words, the 3 temple characters were 3 different generations. Michael's (or our God the father) father is sometimes referred to as "grandfather" by Brigham to distinguish between the generations:

 

Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with their Grandfather, and their children were more or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather. (Brigham Young, JD 9:148, 1/12/1862)

 

After the deed was done, the Lord enquired 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. (Brigham Young, Speech at the territorial legislature as reported by Wilford Woodruff, Church Archives, 2/5/1852)

 

[I won't color-code this one, because it's a hypothetical for when you become a god, so the individuals referred to here are pushed up one generation] You call your spiritual children together and hold a council with them; and in the contemplation of a new earth, a savior must be provided. You call for volunteers, there may be a number of bright sons reply. It is your right to choose the one dearest to your own heart, he being worthy of the position. Another among the volunteers may become offended, and rebel against the plan, and lead many away with him. The chosen one is ordained to his calling, a calling in the Priesthood, and placed in full charge of the organization of the new earth, its redemption and sanctification. Thus the faithful son becomes the creator and redeemer of the new world, Grandfather remaining the highest authority, Architect and Chief Commander, while you, the Father, remain in reserve for other important duties, and thus the six days of creation go on and the earth is finished and is indeed glorious and beautiful. (Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff Journal, 1/27/1860)

 

Contradictions

 

I'll reference some of the places people like to say are Brigham's contradictions.

 

The world may in vain ask the question: "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God who we serve. Some say, "We are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. (JD 13:311. See also JD 1:238).

 

Who is the highest intelligence ... that we know of? Do we know of an intelligence higher than our God the father? In proper context, when you put yourself in Brigham's mind, you know he is not contradicting himself saying Adam is not our heavenly father. When Brigham says that Adam and Eve and WE are the offspring of "the highest intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of," he is clearly referring to someone superior to our own direct father, to our "head god" in this sphere. This statement is consistent with the quote above referring to "Grandfather remaining the highest authority, Architect and Chief Commander." And we, with our heavenly parents, are offspring of the grandfather. Much like saying you and your dad are the offspring of your grandfather. Brigham is hitting hard on the nature of man and deity: we are all of the same species:

 

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. (JD 4:217)

 

Now, a couple more seeming contradictions.

 

We have a God with ears, eyes, nose, mouth; He can and does speak. He has arms, hands, body, legs and feet; He talks and walks; and we are formed after His likeness. The good book--the Bible, tells us what kind of a character our Heavenly Father is. In the first chapter of Genesis and the 17th verse, speaking of the Lord creating men, it reads as plain as it can read, and He created man in His own image and likeness; and if He created Adam and Eve in His own image, the whole human family are like Him. (JD 13:308-309).

 

Brigham is merely using the Bible here to describe a principle, that our God looks like a man with body parts. Yes, take this in isolation, and you think Brigham has a mainstream, Christian belief of who Adam is. But you cannot take anything in isolation. Compare this to the hundreds of his other statements which are clear as rain, that the same being who condescended in the Garden is the same being who is the father of Jesus and our spirits.

 

We believe in God the Father and in Jesus Christ our elder brother. We believe that God is a person of tabernacle, possessing in an infinitely higher degree all the perfections and qualifications of his mortal children. We believe that he made Adam after his own image and likeness. (JD 10:230-231)

 

Again, take this in isolation, and you think Brigham has the mainstream, monotheistic Christian view. Who made Adam? God the Father. What is God the Father? Is there only one God the Father in the entire expanse of universe? No, there are gods many and lords many. It is a title. Of course Adam was created by God the Father, or his God the Father. You can isolate any statement by any one person to extrapolate their beliefs. You have to match up all of the statements for clarification. When you understand Brigham's theology, which consists of a lineage of gods and titles, these are not contradictions.

 

Again, if you're interested in learning the meat, in the true history and identity of the being that bore your spirit and you pray to, read all of the source material of the Adam-God doctrine, as found in Drew Briney's "Understanding Adam-God Teachings." It will expand your mind/soul and enrich your faith. For FDR, it gave him a thrill through his whole body:

 

At meeting of all the apostles except Grant and Merill, Pres. Snow let out on Adam being our father and God. How beautiful the thought - it brot [sic] God nearer to us. Bro Franklin [D. Richards] said it made him thrill through his whole body - it was new & it was inspiring. I followed. (Brigham Young Jr. diary, Church Archives, 10/12/1897)

 

Read the Lecture at the Veil, as taught in the Temple as doctrine, and Brigham's Oct 8, 1854 discourse, which Wilford Woodruff said "was the greatest sermon that was ever delivered to the Latter-day Saints." Over the last few years, I have noticed more people are willing to discuss this doctrine and it is slowly being resurrected. 

[iamse7en]

Searching for "grandfather" in Van Wagoner's complete discourses of BY, I came across another good reference:

 

Every person must have a father and a mother or they could not be. So we had a grandfather or we would have had no father, and our grandfather had a father and a grandfather and a great-great-great-great-great-grandfather so far back there is no beginning. They always existed on some world and when this world was made our god, who is Adam, came and commenced the peopling of it. Though he is God, and has lived and died and been resurrected on some other planet, and obtained his exaltation and begat the spirits of children enough [to] people this world, he came down and brought some of the animal and vegetable productions of some other world so that they might grow and increase here. He, by eating the mortal fruits of the earth, produced mortal children, or commenced the increase of men on the earth, which are the bodies for the spirits to live in.

 

There never was a time when worlds were not created. The work of creation was always in progress.

 

An Adam and Eve are necessary for every world. The oldest Son, if faithful, is the Savior of the family. There are Lords many and Gods many, but the God that we have to account to, is the father of our spirits: Adam.

 

(Brigham Young, John Pulsipher Journal 20-23, 10/8/1854)

Edited January 19, 2015 by iamse7en