Brigham Young?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Get what right? 

You might need to read this thread to discover that we were discussing revelation and inspiration.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

Looking at the original handwriting on the scan I think that attributing the separate and distinct "father Adam", and Abraham, and Michael as scribal error is not realistic.  It looks clear that this is what Joseph said as you have Abraham separating the two persons.  It's very similar to the  Elias and Elijah confusion in D&C 110:12-13, where no one knows who this Elias guy is which held crucial keys which all temple sealers hold for celestial marriage. 

There are several mysteries associated with this matter:  How are we to explain the straightforward listing of Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist, and Jesus in D&C 133:55, which was received in November 1831?  No Elias?  Why not?   During the April 3, 1836, Kirtland Temple dedication (at Jewish Passover), Warren Cowdery was the only recorder of D&C 110:12-15, which parallels D&C 27:6-9 (Aug-Sept 1830) and Malachi 4:5-6.  Yet at first publication in the Times & Seasons (Oct 1, 1842), 936,  the names of the angelic visitors are absent.*  We also have  a discourse  by Joseph Smith in the History of the Church, edited by B. H. Roberts, VI:254, saying

Quote

   The spirit of Elias is first,
    Elijah second,
    and Messiah last.
    Elias is a forerunner to prepare the way,
    and the spirit and power of Elijah is to come after,
    holding the keys of power,
    building the Temple to the capstone,
    placing the seals of the Melchizedek Priesthood upon the house of Israel,
    and making all things ready;
    then Messiah comes to his Temple,
    which is last of all.
    Messiah is above the spirit and power of Elijah,
    for He made the world,
    and was that spiritual rock unto Moses in the Wilderness.
    Elijah was to come and prepare the way
    and build up the kingdom
    before the coming of the great day of the Lord,
    although the spirit of Elias might begin it.

*  Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (Knopf, 2005), 319-320, citing Joseph Smith’s Journal (Dean Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, II:209-210).

Since Elias and Elijah are the same person, it is quite likely that we are dealing here with no more than a poetic couplet, or a scribal dittography, which led to a profound misunderstanding of the nature of Elijah-Elias.  It won't be the first time that scribal confusion has led to misunderstanding.

[Benjamin Seeker]

12 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Same questions. Give me one example in the scriptures where God allowed a true prophet to teach false doctrine for his entire life?

We don't have documentation of a prophet's teachings throughout their entire lives until modern times, so naturally any examples from scripture will be less well documented. I think better examples will be prophets declaring revelations that prove to be false. They don't have to be repeated throughout an entire life to prove the point. For example:

"A city shall be built, New Jerusalem [State of Missouri], in which a temple shall be reared in this generation" Doctrine and Covenants 84:3-5

&

Treasure, gold and silver, would be found in Salem, Massachusetts and would be theirs. Doctrine and Covenants 111:1-11

To be frank, Samuel, realizing that prophets could be dead wrong has helped me redefine my view of prophets and also helped me filter out teachings that I find unhealthy, such as polygamy.

 

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might need to read this thread to discover that we were discussing revelation and inspiration.

Listen I need your help here. I don't  know what to say or think

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Starting to think you and our friend Samuel TL are two sides of the same coin...

Don't understand that at all. Don't you think it would be better if you just responded to my post. I am providing quotes from several sources, including your own as part of my analysis of the situation. We do agree in part, and disagree in part. There is a lot of fodder in the quotes to provide fuel for several different interpretations and no one interpretation completely explains all of the quotes.

I believe that I have presented enough evidence to make my views as tenable as those of any other person. You may disagree. But then I would disagree with your disagreement. 

Glenn

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since Elias and Elijah are the same person, it is quite likely that we are dealing here with no more than a poetic couplet, or a scribal dittography, which led to a profound misunderstanding of the nature of Elijah-Elias.  It won't be the first time that scribal confusion has led to misunderstanding.

There is some confusion on this in my mind on this matter. The Elias that appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration was surely Elijah, but Jesus also referred to John the Baptist as an Elias as in the sense of a forerunner. (Matthew 17:10-13) That is something the JST clarifies, i.e. that Jesus was talking about two Elias'. I don't know if there is a third one though, or if the Elias noted in D&C 77:9 is Elijah, or the one is D&C 77:14 is Elijah or John the Revelator. Just add that to the incredibly long list of things I do not know.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

.............................................................

Daniel H. Wells
Joseph F. Smith
Heber C. Kimball
Franklin D. Richards
George Q. Cannon
Orson Hyde
John Taylor
Lorenzo Snow
Brigham Young Jr.
Abraham H. Cannon

So no, not just Brigham.

Even if those listed here agree, which they do not.  The problem is, of course, that this was not a unanimous statement, and it is unanimity which is required:  D&C 102:3, 107:27.  Orson Pratt did not agree.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

There is some confusion on this in my mind on this matter. The Elias that appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration was surely Elijah, but Jesus also referred to John the Baptist as an Elias as in the sense of a forerunner. (Matthew 17:10-13) That is something the JST clarifies, i.e. that Jesus was talking about two Elias'. I don't know if there is a third one though, or if the Elias noted in D&C 77:9 is Elijah, or the one is D&C 77:14 is Elijah or John the Revelator. Just add that to the incredibly long list of things I do not know.

Glenn

Yes, Jesus himself described the Transfiguration as a “vision” (Matthew 17:9), but his subsequent admonition that his disciples tell no one about that vision, until he be risen from the dead, led to the further question: “Why do the Scribes say that Elias must first come?” (Matthew 17:10)  Jesus replied that “Elias must truly first come and restore all things.”  Why then does Matthew so explicitly maintain that John the Baptizer was indeed that very “Elias”?  (Matthew 11:11-15, 17:11-13; cf. Mark 9:11-13) While John the Baptizer himself rejects such a notion!!  (John 1:21-28)   And what is “the restoration of all things”?  And why is the same place on the River Jordan believed to be both the site of the baptismal activity (and cave) of John the Baptizer and of the spectacular final acts of Elijah centuries earlier?  See Rami Khouri, “Where John Baptized: Bethany Beyond the Jordan,” BAR, 31/1 (Jan-Feb 2005):34-43; also the site of Tell Mar Elias (39,41).

Elias is merely the Greek form of Elijah.  The JST is non-canonical, and may represent here no more than Joseph & Sidney's attempt to clarify texts.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

23 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Samuel is struggling with the idea that BY got something wrong, continued to get it wrong for the entirety of his life, and believed it was a result of revelation. I think it's fair to say that many members of the church would be similarly surprised to learn that BY taught Adam-God the entire time he was president of the church, believed he'd learned it at least partially by revelation, and was mistaken about the whole thing. 

Okay, if you say so. So in your view why should we trust them? Why should we trust ourselves? How can we know our revelations are not simply our own thoughts?   

I am a bit confused because you are telling me BY had false revelation his entire life, or did I misunderstand what you are telling me?  

Edited September 13, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[strappinglad]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Brigham Young, as recorded in the Joseph F. Smith Journal, 17 June 1871. Church Archives "Elohim, Yahovah and Michael were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth and Michael became Adam."
 

Hang on, that  would make Michael/Adam  the son of Jehovah. How can Jesus be the son of Adam and Adam be the son of Jehovah?  There is an old song called " I'm my own grandpa. " Maybe it applies here ? We are told the name of the Father is Ahman  and the name of Christ is SonAhman. Also the Father was once an Adam so Christ is Son Adam. Is there a linguistic connection?

[strappinglad]

9 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I am a bit confused because you are telling me BY had false revelation his entire life, or did I misunderstand what you are telling me?  

What would you say if you received a revelation and wrote it down and got it 95% correct and 5% off ? Would you expect God to come down and slap you upside the head and say " Hey dufus, that's not what I meant ! "

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Hang on, that  would make Michael/Adam  the son of Jehovah. How can Jesus be the son of Adam and Adam be the son of Jehovah?  There is an old song called " I'm my own grandpa. " Maybe it applies here ? We are told the name of the Father is Ahman  and the name of Christ is SonAhman. Also the Father was once an Adam so Christ is Son Adam. Is there a linguistic connection?

Don't know about the last. In his April 9, 1852 speech B.Y. also said the three constituted a quorum. I think that maybe B.Y. was using that to illustrate the relationship between the three, i.e. God the Father at the head, Jesus the Christ next and subordinate to Him, and Adam next and subordinate to Jesus the Christ. I really wish Brigham had included smiley's (okay Brother Watt, put a smiley there, I was joking a bit) in  his sermons and Adam Sr. and Adam Jr. in his speeches. He left us a morass of confusing quotes and almost surely a lot of misquotes by others. But if we could ask today a question on Adam-God I have a feeling that he would tell us to get our own revelations or to ask our living oracles on the matter.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay, if you say so. So in your view why should we trust them? Why should we trust ourselves? How can we know our revelations are not simply our own thoughts?   

I am a bit confused because you are telling me BY had false revelation his entire life, or did I misunderstand what you are telling me?  

Sam, there is no one here on this board that can say with a surety just what Brigham Young did teach and what he actually believed. WE are trying to reconstruct his thoughts and  beliefs from what others have said that he said. If you will read the comments by different posters here you will understand that there is no consensus on the matter. And even if there were a consensus, it would not necessarily be a correct one. I do not recall anyone claiming to have had a revelation on Adam-God. While some are more adamant than others, it still boils down to a mater of opinion.

So, if it really bothers you, maybe it would help if you seek God's inspiration on the subject because none of us can answer for Brigham.

On this board we have some really good scholars, historians, and the such posting and you can learn a lot from reading their posts. Just do not recall any prophets posting here.

Glenn

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/10/2017 at 11:22 PM, JLHPROF said:

So did Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and probably other prophets too (Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, etc).

Did you ask God if Young taught Adam/God? and did you ask him if it is true doctrine?  If you don't get a confirming answer it means he didn't. 

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Orson Pratt did not agree.

And was nearly excommunicated for it.

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Hang on, that  would make Michael/Adam  the son of Jehovah. How can Jesus be the son of Adam and Adam be the son of Jehovah?  There is an old song called " I'm my own grandpa. " Maybe it applies here ? 

Because Jesus and OT Jehovah didn't become the same person in Mormon theology until around the turn of the 20th century.

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And was nearly excommunicated for it.

The methods used by Brigham to punish him was to both send him on a mission and to take away his seniority within the Twelve -- thus preventing him becoming Church President.  Orson took it all in stride.

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because Jesus and OT Jehovah didn't become the same person in Mormon theology until around the turn of the 20th century.

Could you provide a source on that?  Thanks.

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The methods used by Brigham to punish him was to both send him on a mission and to take away his seniority within the Twelve -- thus preventing him becoming Church President.  Orson took it all in stride.

Correct.  His disagreement on Adam-God prevented him from becoming President of the Church.

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Could you provide a source on that?  Thanks.

The history
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V19N01_79.pdf

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/044-36-44.pdf

• Currently, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints defines the Godhead as consisting of three separate and distinct personages or Gods: Elohim, or God the Father; Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, the Son of God both in the spirit and in the flesh; and the Holy Ghost. The Father and the Son have physical, resurrected bodies of flesh and bone, but the Holy Ghost is a spirit personage. Jesus' title of Jehovah reflects his pre-existent role as God of the Old Testament. These definitions took official form in "The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve" (1916) as the culmination of five major stages of theological development in Church history
• To achieve some semblance of harmony between these widely varying ideas, as well as to quell external attacks from anti-Mormon critics at the "Adam-God" doctrine, Mormon leaders carefully reformulated Mormon theology around the turn of the century and articulated it in 1916. These adjustments remain as the current doctrine of the Church today. As a result, much of the original meaning and context of the various godhead references in earlier Mormon scripture and teachings were lost as they were redefined or discarded during this harmonizing process.

The official change - 1916
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng

• In the early 1900s, some discussion arose among Church members about the roles of God the Father and Jesus Christ. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued the following in 1916 to clarify the meaning of certain scriptures where Jesus Christ, or Jehovah, is designated as the Father.

Kevin Barney (FAIR/Dialogue) https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/09/13/authorized-doctrine/#comment-62751

• "The Elohim = Father and Jehovah = Son equations we use in the Church today are simply conventions adopted by the Church in the wake of the 1916 [First Presidency] statement drafted by James Talmage. In the vast majority of 19th century LDS sources, Jehovah was the Father, and this convention doesn’t hold for the OT either.

 

Before AND After

BEFORE - Joseph Smith -  "O Thou, who seest and knowest the hearts of all men-Thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah - God - Thou Elohim, that sittest, as saith the Psalmist, 'enthroned in heaven,' look down upon Thy servant Joseph at this time; and let faith on the name of Thy Son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than Thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him."
AFTER - Gordon B. Hinckley - "He is the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Messiah of the New... It was His finger that wrote the commandments on the Mount." 

BEFORE - John Taylor - "As the Son of God He triumphed over all, and forever ascended to the right hand of God, to further carry out the designs of Jehovah pertaining to the world and to the human family."
AFTER - James Talmage - God the Eternal Father, whom we designate the by the exalted name-title 'Elohim,' is the literal Parent of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race... With this meaning, as the context shows in every case, Jehovah who is Jesus Christ the son of Elohim, is called 'the Father,' and even 'the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth.

BEFORE -  Brigham Young - “Jehovah God, Thou Eloheim - Thy Son Jesus Christ” (BYA, 4 Aug 1867)
AFTER - Bruce R. McConkie - We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost. The Father’s name is Elohim; Jehovah is his Son… Be it known, then, that there is a God in heaven…

And just for fun, a throwback statement
David O. McKay - "Jehovah and His Son, Jesus Christ."  Church News July 1, 1961.

[Bob Crockett]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I can respect your opinion on Adam-God far more than those who try to pretend it never happened.
Those who take the "it was never official, just Brigham's personal belief" approach have a leg to stand on.  I don't happen to agree, but they are dismissing the doctrine for a legitimate reason.
Those who try to show Brigham et al never taught it or manipulate it into meaning something other than the record shows are simply ostriches burying their heads.

That said, I am not sure I agree with the rest of your conclusions in this thread.
Joseph was given revelation as to which apostles to call.  John Taylor's revelation calling Heber J. Grant is another.  A vote of quorum inclusion may be taken, but the prophet calls the apostle, not the quorum itself.
Also, I happen to think the 1886 revelation was genuine - it matches the word of the Lord on the subject in the other uncanonized revelations from that time period.  It is not the outlier you would have it seem.

Sure, the prophet may select the next apostle.  But without the Q12's ratification, there is no calling, no selection, no ordination.  The Bible says that a decision of the apostles must be ratified by the Holy Spirit.  Without the Holy Spirit's ratification, it matters not what the apostles propose.  Similarly, it does not matter that a president of the church has a pet doctrine, a place for a temple or a particular apostle he'd like to call unless the Q12 ratifies.  Brigham Young ordained two of his ten year old sons to be apostles but the Q12 never ratified them.  Thus, not apostles. 

There's a lot of doubt about the 1886 revelation.  According to Ogden Kraut, the best copy in existence appears actually not to be in President Taylor's handwriting but a pencil tracing of President Taylor's handwriting.   Somebody could have fabricated it from a bunch of different documents held up to the window, and that someone was John A. Taylor.    Even so, I can see how President Taylor, to shore up the Church membership's flagging spirits, drafted a revelation to present to the Lord for ratification.   As such ratification never occurred, the draft was just a draft.   Decades ago when I was a high councilor in charge of the M Priesthood I drafted things for my stake president to sign on stake policy matters; just because it was an unsigned draft didn't make it my stake president's statement.  The Church operates like its stakes.

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

 Brigham Young ordained two of his ten year old sons to be apostles but the Q12 never ratified them.  Thus, not apostles. 

Bit of an overstatement.
They WERE apostles.  They just weren't admitted into the quorum.  That is, they held the priesthood office, but not the Church calling.
And they weren't the only ones.

Other Apostles in addition to John Willard and Joseph Angell who were never part of the Qo12 include:
- Hyrum Smith
- Jedediah M. Grant
- Daniel H. Wells
- Alvin R. Dyer

All were apostles without ever being in the quorum.

Edited September 13, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Bob Crockett]

Not an overstatement. 

Apostles with no apostolic authority are not really apostles.  Seventies are also called apostles.  When Mathias Cowley has his priesthood restored, was he an apostle?  When Joseph F. Smith (not the president) had his restored, was he still Church Patriarch?  To be an apostle with a capital "A" one must be in the quorum of the twelve; otherwise, it is as empty as referring to a long-released Bishop as a bishop.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because Jesus and OT Jehovah didn't become the same person in Mormon theology until around the turn of the 20th century.

It's a bit trickier than that. D&C 110 has "We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber. His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying: I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father. Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice."

Edited September 13, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

On 9/12/2017 at 4:52 PM, blueglass said:

Looking at the original handwriting on the scan I think that attributing the separate and distinct "father Adam", and Abraham, and Michael as scribal error is not realistic.  It looks clear that this is what Joseph said as you have Abraham separating the two persons.  It's very similar to the  Elias and Elijah confusion in D&C 110:12-13, where no one knows who this Elias guy is which held crucial keys which all temple sealers hold for celestial marriage. 

Comparing the handwriting to known samples of Joseph Smith's one does see similarities, but Joseph's g's seem to always be closed where as the writing sample of D&C you linked shows the g's seemingly always open at top. Further, that scribe had an open, looped-back d at the end of many words. I have seen this before. It is possible it was his wife Emma iirc. I would have to compare further. However, I am fairly confident this linked sample was that of a scribe. Being separated by Abraham is not determinative. The scribe may have simply remembered the names in the wrong order - a common type of thing.

P.S. Upon further investigation I found that the scribe was Warren Parrish as can be seen on a drop down.

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since Elias and Elijah are the same person, it is quite likely that we are dealing here with no more than a poetic couplet, or a scribal dittography, which led to a profound misunderstanding of the nature of Elijah-Elias.  It won't be the first time that scribal confusion has led to misunderstanding.

This is a confusing subject. The Church dictionary addresses it somewhat:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/elias?lang=eng

However, I note that Esaias and Isaiah are used distinctly, as Esaias appears as a separate prophet in D&C 84:11 who lived in the days of Abraham. It is doubtful Joseph Smith would have confused Esaias for Isaiah even though the former is a Greek form of Isaiah.

I am not going to address the matter further at this time except to say Joseph Smith may have called whoever held the keys an Elias.

Edited September 13, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because Jesus and OT Jehovah didn't become the same person in Mormon theology until around the turn of the 20th century.

Hmm. I thought this teaching came from Joseph Smith. I am confident I could find something besides D& C.

50 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's a bit trickier than that. D&C 110 has "We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber. His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying: I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father. Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice."

I believe it obvious from scripture that both the Father and the Son hold the title of YHWH Elohim, and in Gen 3:22 I think we see an explicit example of that. However, I believe the Father alone held the title of El Elyon, the Most High Power - a scriptural fact which should concern trinitarians.