Great Adam-God Discussion

[Johnnie Cake]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, actually they were either always true or never true.
All that changed is the Church pronouncement on the subject.  But neither Brigham saying he was or Spencer saying he wasn't made Adam into Heavenly Father nor removed him from that office.

What we say has zero impact on eternal truths.

And yes, that even applies to the priesthood ban.
Either the doctrines taught until 1978 were true or they weren't.  Changing the doctrines we teach as a Church had no effect on what actually occurred all those millennia ago.

Thank you for showing how so called claimed eternal truths...can not be relied upon even when pronounced as doctrine and true by a man who claims to be a prophet of God. Ergo,  revelations from prophets are unreliable and a thinking person would be stupid to put ones trust or validity in them.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thank you for showing how so called claimed eternal truths...can not be relied upon even when pronounced as doctrine and true by a man who claims to be a prophet of God. Ergo,  revelations from prophets are unreliable and a thinking person would be stupid to put ones trust or validity in them.

No, "Ergo" a thinking person would be smart to examine revelations and find out for themselves.
Being a cynical skeptic is not the same as being a faithful student of the master.

Finding out eternal truths for oneself is what it's all about.  A man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge.  But a man that refuses to believe eternal truths can be known will never gain enough knowledge to find salvation.  He will be too busy doubting truth and fighting revelation.

Edited September 28, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

No, "Ergo" a thinking person would be smart to examine revelations and find out for themselves.
Being a cynical skeptic is not the same as being a faithful student of the master.

Finding out eternal truths for oneself is what it's all about.  A man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge.  But a man that refuses to believe eternal truths can be known will never gain enough knowledge to find salvation.  He will be too busy doubting truth and fighting revelation.

I can only lead you thrust quenching water, I can't make you drink it...

[Glenn101]

On 9/27/2016 at 0:42 AM, rockpond said:

I've gone to a number of sources.  It seems clear to me what BY believed and taught regarding Adam as our God, the father of our Spirits.  I can't dismiss his clear statements on the grounds of some possible punctuation errors or that it was only 20 sermons.  Including the lecture at the veil.  I don't see it as a "specter of false doctrine".  I don't have a problem with BY having believed it or taught it as doctrine.

I have a problem with hiding it, dismissing it, and trying to pretend it was never taught.

 

Rockpond, I am not going to attempt to dissuade you on any particular thing. I am going to point out some things that you are proabably alraady aware of, but I just want to use them for perspective.
When you say that that you cannot dismiss his clear statments I think that you may be missing something. None of the statements in the Journal of Discourses were actually written by Brigham Young. They are written by people who listened to those talks and recorded what they understood him to be saying. Most of the talks in the JOD were transcribed early on by George D. Watt in Pitman shorthand. I am sure that you are aware of the many scribal errors that Royal Skousen has detected in the Book of Mormon dictaion process in his Book of Mormon Critical Text project. (Of course there were no errors in punctuation in the Book of Mormon, because there was no punctuation.) However, Watt did not include much punctuation in his shorthand notes either. The process described involved some interaction between dictator and scribe. Still errors crept in.
   While transcribing a talk, there is no stopping and reading back. There is no immediate feedback to ascertain accuracy. Granted, there are some really good stenographers that can keep up with a rapid fire delivery. And, by most accounts, Watt was pretty good. However a Church History Librarian by the name of Lajean Purcell Carruth has spent a lot of time first learning Piman Shorthand, then learning Watt's personal idiosyncrasies. She said that it took her thirty years studying his papers to become proficient in deciphering his shorthand notes. She has compared some of Watt's shorthand notes to his longhand versions, and to how they appeared in the Journal of Discourses. She has found that Watt often left out portions of the speech or made additions to the speeches. The work os ongoing at this time. One report can be found published by BYU Studies. https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/prophets-have-spoken-but-what-did-they-say-examining-differences-between-george-d-watts. In my opinion, anyone reading the Journal of Discourses should read them much as we are taught to read the Apocrapha. 4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; 5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; (Dcotrine and Covenents, Section 91)

Now, I will show you one instance, pointed out by Elden Watson, where an omission by Watt leads to a significant fifference in the substance of one of Brighams. comments.

Here is an excerpt from the infamous speech by Brigham Young as recorded in the Journal of Discourses.

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.

Willford Woodruff, in his Journal, recorded his notes from that talk. What he said of the talk at this point was:
When our Father came into the garden he came with his celestial body &brought one of his wives with him and eat of the fruit of the garden until he could beget a tabernacle,

Note the difference there. Willford Woodruff did not say anything about Adam or Eve. Did Woodruff just leave it out> Or did Watt add the information about Adam and Eve because that is what he thought Brigham was talking about. Watt does not say anything about eating of the fruit of the garden until whoever it was could beget a taberbacle. So where did Woodruff get this (other than the sermon, that is)?

I am not going to try to persuade you or amyone else which was the correct rendition. I am only using this to show that there are different takes on what Brigham said and what he meant.

Elden Watson also documents something where a simple punctuation change can significantly change the context and meaning of a couple of sentences. The next is Watson's words and excerpts.

In Pitman shorthand of the 1850's, there was no means provided for punctuation; there were paragraph markers at best. Although this is not usually a problem, there are instances where incorrect punctuation during the transcription of the shorthand report has lead to major differences in intended meaning. A classic example of this occurs in a manuscript discourse of Brigham Young which was recorded on February 19, 1854. As transcribed by the reporter, Brigham Young said:

Who was it that spoke from the heaven and said "this is my beloved son, hear him,"? Was it God the
Father? It was. The Apostles bear testimony that such a voice was actually heard. This is my beloved son,
and if it is true the Holy Ghost begat him I would add, which was begotten by one of my neighbors, hear
ye him. Who was the Savior begotten by? O, by his father or his brother, or some other person. So the Holy
Ghost begetting the Savior looks to me. It makes me think of a story I heard in a dramatical performance
once, that a certain individual was born of one of his Aunts, but he had no mother. It appears as reasonable
to me to say a cousin or a fellow laborer of the Savior's begat him, as to say the Holy Ghost begat him.
Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer
of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael; the
Ancient of Days. Has he a father? He has. Has he a mother? He has. Now to say that the Son of God was
begotten by the Holy Ghost, is to say the Holy Ghost is God the Father, which is inconsistent, and contrary
to all the revelations of God both modern and ancient. [Watson, Brigham Young Addresses, 19 Feb. 1854.]

But with only slight modification in punctuation, a more conventional understanding in complete
harmony with Brigham Young's recorded views on the subject appears.

Who was it that spoke from the heaven and said "this is my beloved son, hear him,"? Was it God the
Father? It was. The Apostles bear testimony that such a voice was actually heard. This is my beloved son,
and if it is true the Holy Ghost begat him I would add, which was begotten by one of my neighbors, hear
ye him. Who was the Savior begotten by? O, by his father or his brother, or some other person. So the Holy
Ghost begetting the Savior looks to me. It makes me think of a story I heard in a dramatical performance
once, that a certain individual was born of one of his Aunts, but he had no mother. It appears as reasonable
to me to say a cousin or a fellow laborer of the Savior's begat him, as to say the Holy Ghost begat him.
Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer
of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam. Michael, the
Ancient of Days, has he a father? He has. Has he a mother? He has. Now to say that the Son of God was
begotten by the Holy Ghost, is to say the Holy Ghost is God the Father, which is inconsistent, and contrary
to all the revelations of God both modern and ancient. [Watson, Brigham Young Addresses, 19 Feb. 1854.]

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

The change of one semicolon to a period makes a world of difference in the meaning. During the speech, Watt would have had to try and distinguish between sentence breaks, and maybe "pregnant pauses. Without punctuation, when Watt transcribed the shorthand to longhand, is it possible that he erred in his punctuation?

Now, let's just look at the plain meaning thing a bit. If we take the "plain meaning" of "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth," (John 4:24) we would pretty much have to say that God does not have a body, if we ignore all of the other evidences that the scriptures provide. But if we take all of the evidences that the scriptures provide of God having a body, that Jesus was in His express image, etc, then we need to come to a bit different understanding of what John meant, or if it maybe is an incorrect translation.

Now, this has been a bit long winded, and it will be my last gasp on this thread. All things just are not as what they may appear.

Glenn

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Rockpond, I am not going to attempt to dissuade you on any particular thing. I am going to point out some things that you are proabably alraady aware of, but I just want to use them for perspective.
When you say that that you cannot dismiss his clear statments I think that you may be missing something. None of the statements in the Journal of Discourses were actually written by Brigham Young. They are written by people who listened to those talks and recorded what they understood him to be saying. Most of the talks in the JOD were transcribed early on by George D. Watt in Pitman shorthand. I am sure that you are aware of the many scribal errors that Royal Skousen has detected in the Book of Mormon dictaion process in his Book of Mormon Critical Text project. (Of course there were no errors in punctuation in the Book of Mormon, because there was no punctuation.) However, Watt did not include much punctuation in his shorthand notes either. The process described involved some interaction between dictator and scribe. Still errors crept in.
   While transcribing a talk, there is no stopping and reading back. There is no immediate feedback to ascertain accuracy. Granted, there are some really good stenographers that can keep up with a rapid fire delivery. And, by most accounts, Watt was pretty good. However a Church History Librarian by the name of Lajean Purcell Carruth has spent a lot of time first learning Piman Shorthand, then learning Watt's personal idiosyncrasies. She said that it took her thirty years studying his papers to become proficient in deciphering his shorthand notes. She has compared some of Watt's shorthand notes to his longhand versions, and to how they appeared in the Journal of Discourses. She has found that Watt often left out portions of the speech or made additions to the speeches. The work os ongoing at this time. One report can be found published by BYU Studies. https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/prophets-have-spoken-but-what-did-they-say-examining-differences-between-george-d-watts. In my opinion, anyone reading the Journal of Discourses should read them much as we are taught to read the Apocrapha. 4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; 5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; (Dcotrine and Covenents, Section 91)

Now, I will show you one instance, pointed out by Elden Watson, where an omission by Watt leads to a significant fifference in the substance of one of Brighams. comments.

Here is an excerpt from the infamous speech by Brigham Young as recorded in the Journal of Discourses.

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.

Willford Woodruff, in his Journal, recorded his notes from that talk. What he said of the talk at this point was:
When our Father came into the garden he came with his celestial body &brought one of his wives with him and eat of the fruit of the garden until he could beget a tabernacle,

Note the difference there. Willford Woodruff did not say anything about Adam or Eve. Did Woodruff just leave it out> Or did Watt add the information about Adam and Eve because that is what he thought Brigham was talking about. Watt does not say anything about eating of the fruit of the garden until whoever it was could beget a taberbacle. So where did Woodruff get this (other than the sermon, that is)?

I am not going to try to persuade you or amyone else which was the correct rendition. I am only using this to show that there are different takes on what Brigham said and what he meant.

Elden Watson also documents something where a simple punctuation change can significantly change the context and meaning of a couple of sentences. The next is Watson's words and excerpts.

In Pitman shorthand of the 1850's, there was no means provided for punctuation; there were paragraph markers at best. Although this is not usually a problem, there are instances where incorrect punctuation during the transcription of the shorthand report has lead to major differences in intended meaning. A classic example of this occurs in a manuscript discourse of Brigham Young which was recorded on February 19, 1854. As transcribed by the reporter, Brigham Young said:

Who was it that spoke from the heaven and said "this is my beloved son, hear him,"? Was it God the
Father? It was. The Apostles bear testimony that such a voice was actually heard. This is my beloved son,
and if it is true the Holy Ghost begat him I would add, which was begotten by one of my neighbors, hear
ye him. Who was the Savior begotten by? O, by his father or his brother, or some other person. So the Holy
Ghost begetting the Savior looks to me. It makes me think of a story I heard in a dramatical performance
once, that a certain individual was born of one of his Aunts, but he had no mother. It appears as reasonable
to me to say a cousin or a fellow laborer of the Savior's begat him, as to say the Holy Ghost begat him.
Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer
of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael; the
Ancient of Days. Has he a father? He has. Has he a mother? He has. Now to say that the Son of God was
begotten by the Holy Ghost, is to say the Holy Ghost is God the Father, which is inconsistent, and contrary
to all the revelations of God both modern and ancient. [Watson, Brigham Young Addresses, 19 Feb. 1854.]

But with only slight modification in punctuation, a more conventional understanding in complete
harmony with Brigham Young's recorded views on the subject appears.

Who was it that spoke from the heaven and said "this is my beloved son, hear him,"? Was it God the
Father? It was. The Apostles bear testimony that such a voice was actually heard. This is my beloved son,
and if it is true the Holy Ghost begat him I would add, which was begotten by one of my neighbors, hear
ye him. Who was the Savior begotten by? O, by his father or his brother, or some other person. So the Holy
Ghost begetting the Savior looks to me. It makes me think of a story I heard in a dramatical performance
once, that a certain individual was born of one of his Aunts, but he had no mother. It appears as reasonable
to me to say a cousin or a fellow laborer of the Savior's begat him, as to say the Holy Ghost begat him.
Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer
of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam. Michael, the
Ancient of Days, has he a father? He has. Has he a mother? He has. Now to say that the Son of God was
begotten by the Holy Ghost, is to say the Holy Ghost is God the Father, which is inconsistent, and contrary
to all the revelations of God both modern and ancient. [Watson, Brigham Young Addresses, 19 Feb. 1854.]

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

The change of one semicolon to a period makes a world of difference in the meaning. During the speech, Watt would have had to try and distinguish between sentence breaks, and maybe "pregnant pauses. Without punctuation, when Watt transcribed the shorthand to longhand, is it possible that he erred in his punctuation?

Now, let's just look at the plain meaning thing a bit. If we take the "plain meaning" of "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth," (John 4:24) we would pretty much have to say that God does not have a body, if we ignore all of the other evidences that the scriptures provide. But if we take all of the evidences that the scriptures provide of God having a body, that Jesus was in His express image, etc, then we need to come to a bit different understanding of what John meant, or if it maybe is an incorrect translation.

Now, this has been a bit long winded, and it will be my last gasp on this thread. All things just are not as what they may appear.

Glenn

So your position is that all of the times BY was recorded as having taught of Adam being God (our father) they were just errors in transcription?  That BY didn't actually believe Adam-God?

[Calm]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

In the wrong hands, these 14 fundamentals have caused a lot of mischief.

#fixeditforyou

Thank you for not changing it in the quote, giving you a point for that even if I am not sure I agree with you (depends on what you mean by mischief).

[Glenn101]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So your position is that all of the times BY was recorded as having taught of Adam being God (our father) they were just errors in transcription?  That BY didn't actually believe Adam-God?

I am not claiming anything either way. That is something I tried to say in my post. I just pointed out some problems, some contradictions, and pointed you to some more information that you may or may not have. You can believe what you wish, as is you right. You do not have to deal with the information I presented in any way.

Glenn

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I am not claiming anything either way. That is something I tried to say in my post. I just pointed out some problems, some contradictions, and pointed you to some more information that you may or may not have. You can believe what you wish, as is you right. You do not have to deal with the information I presented in any way.

Glenn

The evidence you highlighted was also mentioned in the podcast.  (Though I understand that it isn't accessible to you.)

I think the preponderance of evidence is that BY did teach and believe Adam-God.

Since you have obviously studied it, I'm curious what conclusion you, personally, have arrived at.  

[Glenn101]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The evidence you highlighted was also mentioned in the podcast.  (Though I understand that it isn't accessible to you.)

I think the preponderance of evidence is that BY did teach and believe Adam-God.

Since you have obviously studied it, I'm curious what conclusion you, personally, have arrived at.  

I have not personally arrived at a conclusion. As I have said, I have searched the Journal of Discourses pretty well. I have concatenated all 26 volumes into one huge file in order to search everything in one set. I have looked for instances where Brigham makes comments that indicate his understanding of the relationships between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and Adam/Michael the Archangel. Most of those comments support an orthodox LDS relationship. But, after reading the latest about the work that Lajean Carruth has been doing in comparing Watt's shorthand to his longhand and the Journal of Discourses texts, I am wary about forming any conclusions because I do not know whose words and thoughts I am really reading.

I do not know if Lajean has available the shorthand of the April 1852 sermon or not. I am waiting to find out more.

Glenn

[CMZ]

I have numerous thoughts on the subject but one for now is that in my mind it is problematic to insist there's a contradiction between what Brigham Young taught and what the Church now teaches, and that therefore one or the other or both must be unreliable. At some point we have to realize:

1. There may be inaccuracies in the historical data
2. Even if there really were no inaccuracies whatsoever there may still be a way to reconcile the various teachings
3. Each person has a right to a testimony of the divine calling of the current leadership of the Church (yes, even with all their collective mortal shortcomings)

Quote

 

Beginning with Joseph Smith and continuing on to his successors as President of the Church, the ongoing stream of revelation has perfected our understanding of the gospel. The understanding of doctrines is more complete as taught by the Church today than at any prior time in this dispensation.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/the-living-prophet-our-source-of-pure-doctrine?lang=eng

 

 

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, CMZ said:

Beginning with Joseph Smith and continuing on to his successors as President of the Church, the ongoing stream of revelation has perfected our understanding of the gospel. The understanding of doctrines is more complete as taught by the Church today than at any prior time in this dispensation.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/the-living-prophet-our-source-of-pure-doctrine?lang=eng

Wow.  That may be the Church position but I 100% disagree with it.
I'll put Joseph Smith's doctrinal understanding up against all of today's GA's combined.

• Could we read and comprehend all that has been written from the days of Adam, on the relation of man to God and angels in a future state, we should know very little about it. Reading the experience of others, or the revelation given to them, can never give us a comprehensive view of our condition and true relation to God. Knowledge of these things can only be obtained by experience through the ordinances of God set forth for that purpose. Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject.  Joseph Smith, HC 6:50

He gazed into heaven.  They did not.  They are reading the experience of others and their revelations and "interpreting" them.

Edited September 29, 2016 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

He gazed into heaven.  They did not.  They are reading the experience of others and their revelations and "interpreting" them.

He did, and I would like to add that one way we can gaze into heaven is by reading scripture, counseling with others, and other vicarious means (the companionship of the Holy Ghost makes all the difference).

[Johnnie Cake]

12 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Rockpond, I am not going to attempt to dissuade you on any particular thing. I am going to point out some things that you are proabably alraady aware of, but I just want to use them for perspective.
When you say that that you cannot dismiss his clear statments I think that you may be missing something. None of the statements in the Journal of Discourses were actually written by Brigham Young. They are written by people who listened to those talks and recorded what they understood him to be saying. Most of the talks in the JOD were transcribed early on by George D. Watt in Pitman shorthand. I am sure that you are aware of the many scribal errors that Royal Skousen has detected in the Book of Mormon dictaion process in his Book of Mormon Critical Text project. (Of course there were no errors in punctuation in the Book of Mormon, because there was no punctuation.) However, Watt did not include much punctuation in his shorthand notes either. The process described involved some interaction between dictator and scribe. Still errors crept in.
   While transcribing a talk, there is no stopping and reading back. There is no immediate feedback to ascertain accuracy. Granted, there are some really good stenographers that can keep up with a rapid fire delivery. And, by most accounts, Watt was pretty good. However a Church History Librarian by the name of Lajean Purcell Carruth has spent a lot of time first learning Piman Shorthand, then learning Watt's personal idiosyncrasies. She said that it took her thirty years studying his papers to become proficient in deciphering his shorthand notes. She has compared some of Watt's shorthand notes to his longhand versions, and to how they appeared in the Journal of Discourses. She has found that Watt often left out portions of the speech or made additions to the speeches. The work os ongoing at this time. One report can be found published by BYU Studies. https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/prophets-have-spoken-but-what-did-they-say-examining-differences-between-george-d-watts. In my opinion, anyone reading the Journal of Discourses should read them much as we are taught to read the Apocrapha. 4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; 5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; (Dcotrine and Covenents, Section 91)

Now, I will show you one instance, pointed out by Elden Watson, where an omission by Watt leads to a significant fifference in the substance of one of Brighams. comments.

Here is an excerpt from the infamous speech by Brigham Young as recorded in the Journal of Discourses.

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.

Willford Woodruff, in his Journal, recorded his notes from that talk. What he said of the talk at this point was:
When our Father came into the garden he came with his celestial body &brought one of his wives with him and eat of the fruit of the garden until he could beget a tabernacle,

Note the difference there. Willford Woodruff did not say anything about Adam or Eve. Did Woodruff just leave it out> Or did Watt add the information about Adam and Eve because that is what he thought Brigham was talking about. Watt does not say anything about eating of the fruit of the garden until whoever it was could beget a taberbacle. So where did Woodruff get this (other than the sermon, that is)?

I am not going to try to persuade you or amyone else which was the correct rendition. I am only using this to show that there are different takes on what Brigham said and what he meant.

Elden Watson also documents something where a simple punctuation change can significantly change the context and meaning of a couple of sentences. The next is Watson's words and excerpts.

In Pitman shorthand of the 1850's, there was no means provided for punctuation; there were paragraph markers at best. Although this is not usually a problem, there are instances where incorrect punctuation during the transcription of the shorthand report has lead to major differences in intended meaning. A classic example of this occurs in a manuscript discourse of Brigham Young which was recorded on February 19, 1854. As transcribed by the reporter, Brigham Young said:

Who was it that spoke from the heaven and said "this is my beloved son, hear him,"? Was it God the
Father? It was. The Apostles bear testimony that such a voice was actually heard. This is my beloved son,
and if it is true the Holy Ghost begat him I would add, which was begotten by one of my neighbors, hear
ye him. Who was the Savior begotten by? O, by his father or his brother, or some other person. So the Holy
Ghost begetting the Savior looks to me. It makes me think of a story I heard in a dramatical performance
once, that a certain individual was born of one of his Aunts, but he had no mother. It appears as reasonable
to me to say a cousin or a fellow laborer of the Savior's begat him, as to say the Holy Ghost begat him.
Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer
of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael; the
Ancient of Days. Has he a father? He has. Has he a mother? He has. Now to say that the Son of God was
begotten by the Holy Ghost, is to say the Holy Ghost is God the Father, which is inconsistent, and contrary
to all the revelations of God both modern and ancient. [Watson, Brigham Young Addresses, 19 Feb. 1854.]

But with only slight modification in punctuation, a more conventional understanding in complete
harmony with Brigham Young's recorded views on the subject appears.

Who was it that spoke from the heaven and said "this is my beloved son, hear him,"? Was it God the
Father? It was. The Apostles bear testimony that such a voice was actually heard. This is my beloved son,
and if it is true the Holy Ghost begat him I would add, which was begotten by one of my neighbors, hear
ye him. Who was the Savior begotten by? O, by his father or his brother, or some other person. So the Holy
Ghost begetting the Savior looks to me. It makes me think of a story I heard in a dramatical performance
once, that a certain individual was born of one of his Aunts, but he had no mother. It appears as reasonable
to me to say a cousin or a fellow laborer of the Savior's begat him, as to say the Holy Ghost begat him.
Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer
of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam. Michael, the
Ancient of Days, has he a father? He has. Has he a mother? He has. Now to say that the Son of God was
begotten by the Holy Ghost, is to say the Holy Ghost is God the Father, which is inconsistent, and contrary
to all the revelations of God both modern and ancient. [Watson, Brigham Young Addresses, 19 Feb. 1854.]

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

The change of one semicolon to a period makes a world of difference in the meaning. During the speech, Watt would have had to try and distinguish between sentence breaks, and maybe "pregnant pauses. Without punctuation, when Watt transcribed the shorthand to longhand, is it possible that he erred in his punctuation?

Now, let's just look at the plain meaning thing a bit. If we take the "plain meaning" of "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth," (John 4:24) we would pretty much have to say that God does not have a body, if we ignore all of the other evidences that the scriptures provide. But if we take all of the evidences that the scriptures provide of God having a body, that Jesus was in His express image, etc, then we need to come to a bit different understanding of what John meant, or if it maybe is an incorrect translation.

Now, this has been a bit long winded, and it will be my last gasp on this thread. All things just are not as what they may appear.

Glenn

Imagine if President Monson learned that the lecture at the veil had been changed and that false doctrine, even apostate doctrines, contrary to his teachings had been introduced to the temple...and that some of the GA were out teaching this same doctrine to the membership of the church in stake confenrences...do you honestly think if this happened a healthy President Monson wouldn't correct the matter at the first opportunity and send out a 1st presidency memo to all wards and stake leaders setting the record straight  and yet Brigham young did none of this...  No Adam God is exactly what BY taught and preached for 25 years.  The record is clear that he is the one who directed the lecture at the veil to be changed to introduce the doctrine of Adam being God, His scribes under his direction wrote down his conference talks which he then reviewed for accuracy prior to publishing.  This is Brigham's doing and is 100% on his shoulders.  Brigham was aware of the flase doctrine which he firmly believed to be a revelation from God and took step to widely disseminated it throughout the church.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Imagine if President Monson learned that the lecture at the veil had been changed and that false doctrine, even apostate doctrines, contrary to his teachings had been introduced to the temple...and that some of the GA were out teaching this same doctrine to the membership of the church in stake confenrences...do you honestly think if this happened a healthy President Monson wouldn't correct the matter at the first opportunity and send out a 1st presidency memo to all wards and stake leaders setting the record straight  and yet Brigham young did none of this...  No Adam God is exactly what BY taught and preached for 25 years.  The record is clear that he is the one who directed the lecture at the veil to be changed to introduce the doctrine of Adam being God, His scribes under his direction wrote down his conference talks which he then reviewed for accuracy prior to publishing.  This is Brigham's doing and is 100% on his shoulders.  Brigham was aware of the flase doctrine which he firmly believed to be a revelation from God and took step to widely disseminated it throughout the church.

I noticed that you quoted my entire post but made no effort to deal with the information I presented. But that is okay, if it works for you.

Edited to add: empty, blanket assertions with no supporting evidence do not work for me.

Glenn

Edited September 29, 2016 by Glenn101

[CMZ]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

He gazed into heaven.  They did not.

Do we know that current general authorities have not?

[notHagoth7]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

First of all.  I applaud you on being able to capture my post in the 30 seconds that it was actually posted online...

Either I *was* quick, *or* I'm honing new skills in non-linear time.... You choose.

And yet this is exactly what happened with Adam God and the Priesthood ban...with few exceptions, members blindly accepted these claimed revelations and followed their prophets...can you give me an example of any recent modern claimed revelation where this is not the norm or expectation?

Accepting what is said is often both the social norm, and the social expectation.

However, I don't see such as the drastic tragedy some deem it to be.

Some deem common consent to mean that when they have once sustained someone, they have then agreed to follow.

Others deem common consent to instead mean that nothing is binding until/unless it has been specifically voted on.

I believe there's often a sweet spot somewhere in between those two extremes. For me, what it means to sustain and what common consent means/implies might differ from that of quite a few. 

...Once a claimed controversial revelation has been pronounced and implemented, experience has shown that it takes decades of quiet behind the scenes agitation for the oligarchy to reverse itself and submit to societal pressures.  It took 50 years to finely reject the heretical apostate teachings of Brigham young's Adam God....

Heretical? Apostate? Seems over the top to me.

A *true* teaching/principle *can* be a false doctrine (i.e. something that would be false/wrong/incorrect to insist that someone needs to believe/do such *in the here and now*). So if dozens of people were screaming in a ward meeting that an ark needs to be built, and a bishop stood up and said such was a false doctrine...the bishop could be quite correct, *without* making Noah (or BY) a false/heretical/apostate prophet. 

Is the distinction clear? 

That said, when one is left with what can clearly appear to be a contradiction, one obviously has the privilege to retreat to study and prayer to resolve the supposed Gordian knot. Several here have done so to their satisfaction. 

...and another 130 to finally reject his bigotry and racist  priesthood ban...

Some assert that the lengthy ban was due specifically to generations of bigotry/racism within church leadership. 

However, from discussion with others, I am of the opinion that the larger issue was that too many non-black members of the church, for generations, were simply not ready for things to move forward...hence the lengthy lack of a green light to resolve the issue, even though leaders for years wanted and prayed for such. For example, the early Adventist solution for potential racial friction was to segregate black and white congregations. That worked for them. For a number of reasons, I don't believe that was a viable or desirable option for early LDS members. I don't claim that explanation to be *the* answer, but it is a more accurate answer that also  happens to work for me, and is based on personal interaction with others of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds over the years.

Do I believe early leaders suggested things based in part on their cultural upbringing that may not be accurate? Sure. We all have cultural baggage on a wide swath of issues. Everyone is an imperfect lens that refracts/distorts light to differing degrees. I hope we can be charitable...and can hopefully not be too heavyhanded with presentism - either in our assessment of leadership, or of other members.

...Can we not expect the same pattern to repeat itself on woman and LGBTQ issues in the future...yet in the mean time people will suffer....

Same pattern? While I'm not one who often claims to have the clearest bead on the future, I guess the obvious stickler is that conservative groups, whether one deems their stance to be valid or not, *will* tend to continue acting conservatively. (No big shock there, perhaps?) To expect otherwise is to set oneself up for disappointment and frustration - isn't it? 

As to suffering, having experienced a fair amount of pain/suffering over the years, as much as I don't actively wish such on others, I'm in theory a better man for it. I also acknowledge that learning to respond positively to trials, and reaching out to others who are dealing with such, is a key part of the reason we're on earth...personal growth....bearing one another's burdens...mourning with those who mourn...etc... So while I'm sensitive to the suffering of others, sometimes pain is caused by something as unreasonable as hanging all one's expectations on a lion acting instead like a hamster or a pigeon or a tree. Creations will generally act according to their nature.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

Do we know that current general authorities have not?

I would say there is a distinct lack of any evidence.

[CMZ]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I would say there is a distinct lack of any evidence.

We just need to keep in mind the possibility that seeming lack of evidence doesn't prove that it hasn't occurred.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, CMZ said:

We just need to keep in mind the possibility that seeming lack of evidence doesn't prove that it hasn't occurred.

Agreed.
But to go back to my original quote: "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject."
 

• Joseph Smith met God and Christ on several occasions and gave us the King Follett Discourse stating that God was once a man like us.
  Gordon B. Hinckley called it "some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about"
   
• Joseph F. Smith gave us D&C 138 in 1918 showing he had seen heaven and stated that the garment was based on a heavenly pattern
• Heber J. Grant said  "It may be observed that no fixed pattern of Temple garment has ever been given"
   
• John Taylor received a vision of the future of the Church and the New Jerusalem, and it included angels quoting Isaiah 4:1 on polygamy
• Vilate Kimball received a vision of heaven and the future of her husbands plural family
• Dallin H. Oaks said "for people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, “What will life be in the next life, when you’re married to more than one wife for eternity?” I have to say I don’t know. "
   
• Wilford Woodruff also records seeing heaven and speaking to Joseph there about how busy they were due to this being the last dispensation.

Now, which ones seem like they are operating based on knowledge from seeing heaven, and which seem to be operating on personal scholarship and study?
 

[VideoGameJunkie]

If Adam is Heavenly Father then why is he handing over the keys to Jesus Christ to usher in the Millennium. And if Adam is God then who are Elohim and Jehovah and does that lesson Jesus Christ's importance. I just don't see Adam being more powerful than Jesus and I've always believed Elohim is Heavenly Father, Jehovah is Jesus and Michael is Adam.

[notHagoth7]

On 9/28/2016 at 8:46 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

...I would love to hear how you spin the intended foresight and specific intent...given your current advantage of hindsight...of the ban and Adam God....

You call it "spin" - before even hearing my take on it?

On 9/28/2016 at 8:46 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

...Please help me understand how sending the church into apostasy for 50 years or banning all worthy males had purpose?...

And now you're claiming "apostasy". 

With such preconceptions, I'm not sure how any genuine attempt at an answer would be of actual assistance. 

I really would like to help. Apparently the situation isn't yet right for that. Perhaps another time.

Edited September 29, 2016 by notHagoth7

[JLHPROF]

57 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

If Adam is Heavenly Father then why is he handing over the keys to Jesus Christ to usher in the Millennium.

Not the keys alone, but the earth and us.
They are his inheritance.  That is how Christ the Son becomes the Father (as in the Book of Mormon).  By inheriting this earth and us from the father.
That is why Adam is considered the firstborn in the Book of Abraham, and later when we are given to Christ we are to be called the Church of the Firstborn.

Quote

 And if Adam is God then who are Elohim and Jehovah and does that lesson Jesus Christ's importance. I just don't see Adam being more powerful than Jesus and I've always believed Elohim is Heavenly Father, Jehovah is Jesus and Michael is Adam.

Jehovah is Adam's head, Elohim is the "head God" of all the Elohim (Elohim is plural).
No, that doesn't lessen Christ's importance at all.
He will be the next Jehovah, standing as the head of all of us who "consider ourselves" as Adams and Eves.  And working with us to create worlds.
He will always be our head for all eternity.  The fact that he also has a head doesn't take anything away from him.

[Johnnie Cake]

46 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

You call it "spin" - before even hearing my take on it?

And now you're claiming "apostasy". 

With such preconceptions, I'm not sure how any genuine attempt at an answer would be of actual assistance. 

I really would like to help. Apparently the situation isn't yet right for that. Perhaps another time.

Fair Enough....I'm listening...

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

If Adam is Heavenly Father then why is he handing over the keys to Jesus Christ to usher in the Millennium. And if Adam is God then who are Elohim and Jehovah and does that lesson Jesus Christ's importance. I just don't see Adam being more powerful than Jesus and I've always believed Elohim is Heavenly Father, Jehovah is Jesus and Michael is Adam.

According to a BY quote that Volluz cites in the podcast, BY believed that Elohim was the father of our Heavenly Father, Adam. 

[CMZ]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Agreed.
But to go back to my original quote: "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject."
 

• Joseph Smith met God and Christ on several occasions and gave us the King Follett Discourse stating that God was once a man like us.
  Gordon B. Hinckley called it "some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about"
   
• Joseph F. Smith gave us D&C 138 in 1918 showing he had seen heaven and stated that the garment was based on a heavenly pattern
• Heber J. Grant said  "It may be observed that no fixed pattern of Temple garment has ever been given"
   
• John Taylor received a vision of the future of the Church and the New Jerusalem, and it included angels quoting Isaiah 4:1 on polygamy
• Vilate Kimball received a vision of heaven and the future of her husbands plural family
• Dallin H. Oaks said "for people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, “What will life be in the next life, when you’re married to more than one wife for eternity?” I have to say I don’t know. "
   
• Wilford Woodruff also records seeing heaven and speaking to Joseph there about how busy they were due to this being the last dispensation.

Now, which ones seem like they are operating based on knowledge from seeing heaven, and which seem to be operating on personal scholarship and study?
 

Okay, so the Church died with Wilford Woodruff.