Jump to content

Joseph Smith and Multiple Mortal Probations


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not to drag out this thread necromancy but I attended LaJean's presentation at the MHA this year.  She spoke about Watt and the things he changed in the JoD and how we view Brigham as a result.

She also categorically stated that yes, Brigham taught Adam-God in the original unedited transcripts, not just in Watt's edits.  So perhaps we can put the false "misqouted" argument to bed now.

This is an old thread. Wish you had started a new one. Is there a transcript of her talk anywhere? I would have to go back and dig out all of the stuff I read on this now. From what I can remember, the April 9 1852 sermon that started the whole thing had not been found :

"Gerrit Dirkmaat:        Exactly. We’re saying that, “God is this,” or, “God is that,” or, “Adam is this.” Now what word Brigham Young uses is actually the crux of the entire question. Unfortunately for the Adam–God theory, at least for the sermon, the most famous sermon that surrounds it, there is no shorthand." https://ldsperspectives.com/2017/02/15/in-brighams-words/

I was hoping that one would be found, transcribed, and published. I am not disputing that Brigham never taught anything about Adam as a God. Never have. Just that our understanding of what he taught may not be fully informed.

Glenn

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not to drag out this thread necromancy but I attended LaJean's presentation at the MHA this year.  She spoke about Watt and the things he changed in the JoD and how we view Brigham as a result.

She also categorically stated that yes, Brigham taught Adam-God in the original unedited transcripts, not just in Watt's edits.  So perhaps we can put the false "misqouted" argument to bed now.

Also it’s heavily recorded in personal journals, interviews, and council minutes that it was taught. Most people think that it’s just that one talk in the JoD, which is far from the truth.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

This is an old thread. Wish you had started a new one. Is there a transcript of her talk anywhere? I would have to go back and dig out all of the stuff I read on this now. From what I can remember, the April 9 1852 sermon that started the whole thing had not been found :

"Gerrit Dirkmaat:        Exactly. We’re saying that, “God is this,” or, “God is that,” or, “Adam is this.” Now what word Brigham Young uses is actually the crux of the entire question. Unfortunately for the Adam–God theory, at least for the sermon, the most famous sermon that surrounds it, there is no shorthand." https://ldsperspectives.com/2017/02/15/in-brighams-words/

I was hoping that one would be found, transcribed, and published. I am not disputing that Brigham never taught anything about Adam as a God. Never have. Just that our understanding of what he taught may not be fully informed.

Glenn

Yes, I see where Gerritt Dirkmat says that.

LaJean must disagree because I have an audio recording on my phone that I have no way to post (sorry, not very technically minded).

But she starts out her presentation saying "whether or not Brigham really taught this theory in the shorthand record....*dramatic pause*...he did."  Cue laughter.
And since she's basically the only person around who reads that shorthand I'm willing to take her opinion as the expert.

Link to post
On 10/3/2019 at 3:23 PM, Matt Lohrke said:

LDS theology rejects the Atonement, not in word, but in deed.  It doesn't believe Christ actually has the power to save and that man somehow has to perform "proxy ordinances" to the help the "progress."

And so I guess there was no need for Christ to preach to the dead in prison and to open Abraham's 

This misses the entire point of work for the dead which is really about "turning our hearts to the fathers" as Malachi points out is necessary, or the whole purpose of the earth would be "wasted"

What does this mean, and what is the curse and why?   It sounds horribly important to me!

And why did Elijah have to come back and do.... WHAT??

Quote

 

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

King James Version (KJV) Malachi 4

 

We do not perform magical voodoo spells in the temple- we turn our hearts in service to in some small way take upon ourselves BEING a "savior" in thinking of those who have not been thought of in hundreds of years.   We see them as part of our community- as fellow members of the "body" of Christ with us"

We pray upon those folks the same blessings we receive and therefore have the opportunity to hear once again the blessings we personally are given in the endowment.

The work must be done by the living FOR the living and their benefit.

Of course the savior could and does it all in the long run anyway but I cannot image a better way that we can see ourselves as literally "his hands" in granting to others eternal life.

Religion is not about changing the world externally- it is about changing ourselves INTERNALLY.

Link to post
On 10/3/2019 at 3:23 PM, Matt Lohrke said:

The atonement also negates the need for proxy baptism, or baptism for the dead.   LDS theology rejects the Atonement, not in word, but in deed.  It doesn't believe Christ actually has the power to save and that man somehow has to perform "proxy ordinances" to the help the "progress."

If the atonement does everything by itself, then Christ wouldn't have instructed his disciples to baptize would He? If the living need baptism to be resurrected in the first resurrection, why not the dead?

  • Like 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, I see where Gerritt Dirkmat says that.

LaJean must disagree because I have an audio recording on my phone that I have no way to post (sorry, not very technically minded).

But she starts out her presentation saying "whether or not Brigham really taught this theory in the shorthand record....*dramatic pause*...he did."  Cue laughter.
And since she's basically the only person around who reads that shorthand I'm willing to take her opinion as the expert.

I am not sure what you are saying there. Are you saying that the shorthand of the that April 1852 talk has been found and transcribed? Is that all she said about the Adam-God stuff?

Glenn

Link to post
2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I am not sure what you are saying there. Are you saying that the shorthand of the that April 1852 talk has been found and transcribed? Is that all she said about the Adam-God stuff?

Glenn

I think he is saying even if the talk hasn’t been found as Dirkmat says, Carruth is saying there is plenty of other stuff referring to Adam-God.  

But they could both be right as they do not contradict each other.  The talk is missing, but there is enough other stuff so the first known talk about it is not needed to conclude BY talked about it.

What we don’t know is given the missing original sermon was the first mention of it, if something he said in it might had added nuances that helped make sense of the different ways he referred to it later.  I wonder if he assumed people would know what he was talking about so he skipped it later as he saw it as so basic or maybe the opposite, too hard to process or accept.

What do we have of others speaking in reference to his teachings?  Do they scratch their heads or do they talk like it makes sense to them?

Edited by Calm
Link to post

Whatever our destiny in the eternities, there is one thing of which I am certain....

God will never force on us something we do not want. Jesus volunteered to be our Savior. If perchance that is the ultimate requirement for Godhood, only those who knowingly, willingly, and selflessly choose to do it would qualify. 

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2
Link to post
8 hours ago, Calm said:

I think he is saying even if the talk hasn’t been found as Dirkmat says, Carruth is saying there is plenty of other stuff referring to Adam-God.  

But they could both be right as they do not contradict each other.  The talk is missing, but there is enough other stuff so the first known talk about it is not needed to conclude BY talked about it.

What we don’t know is given the missing original sermon was the first mention of it, if something he said in it might had added nuances that helped make sense of the different ways he referred to it later.  I wonder if he assumed people would know what he was talking about so he skipped it later as he saw it as so basic or maybe the opposite, too hard to process or accept.

What do we have of others speaking in reference to his teachings?  Do they scratch their heads or do they talk like it makes sense to them?

That there is a lot of stuff referencing Adam-God is something that is indisputable. it is the nuances that I am curious about. I have read things here and there, such as things fro Willford Woodruff's journal where two words can significantly alter the meaning of a sentence etc. as can punctuation. But I am not going to revisit that debate unless the April 1852 shorthand is found and transcribed.

  • Like 2
Link to post
7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Whatever our destiny in the eternities, there is one thing of which I am certain....

God will never force on us something we do not want. Jesus volunteered to be our Savior. If perchance that is the ultimate requirement for Godhood, only those who knowingly, willingly, and selflessly choose to do it would qualify. 

 

A bright, shining star of truth shines yonder in the darkness!

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 10/3/2019 at 3:38 PM, Matt Lohrke said:

In a Multiple Mortal Probation scenario, what is the purpose of Jesus Christ and the Atonement?  We do we need a redeemer and a Savior if we just repeat this process 2, 10, or 1,000 times?   This concept of MMP is a cancer that has infected Mormonism.  It should be rejected out of hand and cast into the fire.   It doesn't matter Joseph Smith said, or is said to have said, or claimed to have said, or what is attributed to him.  Joseph Smith doesn't supersede the Book of Mormon.

According to Alma:

"And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead."  (Alma 12)

"For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.  And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.  Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world."  (Alma 34)

"And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is calledparadise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.  And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the bdevil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.  Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection."  (Alma 40)

If it's not clear from these passages...I don't know what else to say.

 

For the record, multiple mortal probations are definitely NOT part of our doctrine even if some may believe in that idea.

So that really is a dead issue for us.

It is a confusion of titles and names with individuals.    There may be more than one "Elias" as a title but each is an individual with their own probation.

  • Like 2
Link to post
10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

God will never force on us something we do not want. Jesus volunteered to be our Savior. If perchance that is the ultimate requirement for Godhood, only those who knowingly, willingly, and selflessly choose to do it would qualify

According to Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Jesus became ranked as a God when
he reached a pinnacle of intelligence.

Link to post
On 2/28/2017 at 12:31 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

What follows is a thesis on the controversial doctrine from the 19th century referred to as multiple mortal probations, which fell out of favor along with Adam-God

When I read the following passages, I don't see a probationary period after death.

Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice
do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the
presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable
fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that
man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment
(Mosiah 2:38-39).

Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of
repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions,
mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be
destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God
(Alma 42:13).

Also, 1 Nephi 10:21, Alma 11:41; 12:12,16-18; 34:32-35, Mosiah 16:2,5

Thanks,
Jim

Link to post
4 hours ago, theplains said:

According to Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Jesus became ranked as a God when
he reached a pinnacle of intelligence.

Well, if it’s a 400 level class it must be true deep doctrine 😉

  • Like 2
Link to post
  • 3 months later...

Benjamin,

I could not find a single reliable paper/web site/study to validate the following quote and because it is a very powerful one I would like to read it from a really reliable source.

Please can you or anyone else provide it?

Thanks in advance.

JWT

January 1846 Nauvoo Temple Record from the Multiple Mortal Probations document:

  Quote

Brigham Young laid hands on Heber C. Kimball and "Ordained him to the Godhead, and that he would act as the Savior to a world or worlds." This was part of a long prayer. Promised wives, seed without number, be full partaker with Abraham, Isaac., and Jacob. The Godhead was a different blessing from Godhood. (Some received only Godhood.) Heber C. Kimball then did the same to Brigham Young, i.e., ordained him to The Godhead. They in turn did it by proxy for Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Other saints (W.W. Phelps) were blessed to act in Trinities (or Presidencies of worlds).

 

Link to post

I believe in the resurrection! ;):D:rofl::D

(I haven't seen Benjamin Seeker around these parts for quite some time, although perhaps I simply haven't been paying attention.)

Link to post
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I believe in the resurrection! ;):D:rofl::D

(I haven't seen Benjamin Seeker around these parts for quite some time, although perhaps I simply haven't been paying attention.)

He posted last beginning of January, but apparently visited this past week, so he may see this sometime soon....or not.

Link to post
On 2/28/2017 at 12:58 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not going to do anything drastic, but, goodness gracious!  The thrill is gone.  Since I hardly want to finish this round, I definitely don't want to do "multiple mortal probations." Once this one is done, I will be satisfied with whatever modest reward it qualifies me for.

P.S.:  And one lifetime is more than enough, if that lifetime lasts for eternity! ;) 

Something other than what you have imagined might very well be going on because you and I have existed as thinking, free-will individual intelligences for all eternity (a sextillion, sextillion eons wouldn’t even begin to be the start of it) and this earthly mortal probation is only as far as we’ve gotten thus far!?! I’m quite convinced that when the full truth concerning the plan of salvation is revealed to the exalted at some future date, the full scope and complexity of it will be quite mind boggling, and, at least for some, quite unsettling. Of course, this is the reason why those who are fully informed (like the brother of Jared) are strictly forbidden to speak or openly write of the deeper mysteries of the kingdom of God (too much strong meat for the less informed to chew, swallow and successfully digest).

Edited by teddyaware
Link to post
20 hours ago, JWT1886 said:

Benjamin,

I could not find a single reliable paper/web site/study to validate the following quote and because it is a very powerful one I would like to read it from a really reliable source.

Please can you or anyone else provide it?

Thanks in advance.

JWT

January 1846 Nauvoo Temple Record from the Multiple Mortal Probations document:

  Quote

Brigham Young laid hands on Heber C. Kimball and "Ordained him to the Godhead, and that he would act as the Savior to a world or worlds." This was part of a long prayer. Promised wives, seed without number, be full partaker with Abraham, Isaac., and Jacob. The Godhead was a different blessing from Godhood. (Some received only Godhood.) Heber C. Kimball then did the same to Brigham Young, i.e., ordained him to The Godhead. They in turn did it by proxy for Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Other saints (W.W. Phelps) were blessed to act in Trinities (or Presidencies of worlds).

 

I found this quote in a document assembled by scholar Brian Hales and possibly Don Bradley (Don helped with research for Joseph Smith’s Polygamy).

The document is here: http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/MF0081.doc

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 2/1/2020 at 6:14 AM, teddyaware said:

Something other than what you have imagined might very well be going on because you and I have existed as thinking, free-will individual intelligences for all eternity (a sextillion, sextillion eons wouldn’t even begin to be the start of it) and this earthly mortal probation is only as far as we’ve gotten thus far!?! I’m quite convinced that when the full truth concerning the plan of salvation is revealed to the exalted at some future date, the full scope and complexity of it will be quite mind boggling, and, at least for some, quite unsettling. Of course, this is the reason why those who are fully informed (like the brother of Jared) are strictly forbidden to speak or openly write of the deeper mysteries of the kingdom of God (too much strong meat for the less informed to chew, swallow and successfully digest).

On a theoretical level, I understand our eternal existence in the past to have included the time we were still part of our parents before we were born to them as their children.  When parents produce offspring they are reproducing themselves, and thus children are reproductions of their parents who lived before those children were born.  It's counter to the idea that we came from out of nothing or nowhere, that we were somewhere even before we were born to our parents as their children.   That somewhere being in our parents, as a part of them.

Thinking about this I can more easily see how parents can connect with their parents to communicate with them on a spiritual level.  The kind of spirit we have is the same kind of spirit they have.  The spirit of God.  We have that in common with them.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...