Brigham Young?

[Bob Crockett]

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

"I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here"  I found it in the FAIR website https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory#cite_ref-3

If Satan made changes to the 116 pages, why not assume he also made changes to the statement above? I don't think that is Brigham Young unless you believe he can't tell the difference between the Spirit and his own ideas.  

I am realizing that Satan didn't magically have to change historical documents, he could have simply inspired men to make changes because many accounts we have are second and third hand.  Make no mistake Satan does have power because the Bible teaches there are two powers, in Exodus 7 Satan created serpents after watching Moses turn his rod into a serpent. 

What does the 116 pages have to do with Brigham Young's statement?  Is there some relation? 

Quote

I don't think that is Brigham Young unless you believe he can't tell the difference between the Spirit and his own ideas.

Who is "that," and who is "he" and "his" in your sentence?

Edited September 5, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[RevTestament]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, but not in the manner that BY taught:

Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.

 - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 51

It seems the Father was in the Garden of Eden.

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Of course this is all highly symbolic, but it can certainly be said the Father was there as much as Adam. I would say that as Michael, and the representation of the Father, He did beget the first YHWH. Again, this would be in a symbolic form. In other words this is not speaking of things of this world but of a  celestial economy or order of God. So as Michael Adam is standing in that place. It has to do with a revelatory key rather than saying our Adam begat our Savior. No, he did not. He is teaching us the things of the Father - how the Father became the Father. See Gen 3:22. Yeshua was begotten by the oath of the Father as scripture says.

 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It seems the Father was in the Garden of Eden.

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Of course this is all highly symbolic, but it can certainly be said the Father was there as much as Adam.

True, but read all of the other statements and teachings.  He was referring to Adam and stated that he was the Father of Jesus Christ.

Do you believe that BY never taught this or that he was just wrong regarding that teaching?  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

For me, BY was a highly intelligent man in the way of industry and the building of cities and states.  In church doctrine..I would like to think that he just think that he danced to the beat of a different drummer.

According to the OP, we can only hope!

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

True, but read all of the other statements and teachings.  He was referring to Adam and stated that he was the Father of Jesus Christ.

Do you believe that BY never taught this or that he was just wrong regarding that teaching?  

TBH I have never sat down with all of BY's quotes on the subject to check. Most of the quotes are second hand through Woodruff and such. I have a real problem with second-hand quotes in the Church. I have seen just too many of them which don't ring true. Because of the lack of a verbatim record, I would want at least 2-3 statements from the JoD of BY saying that Adam is Yeshua's father to be sure BY taught that, before I would positively accept that he taught it.

The thing is in my view the key of Michael is being confused with our Adam - it is bigger than that. Since church members didn't understand it, it got recorded as BY teaching Adam was Yeshua's father. In a literal flesh sense that may be true - Mary may be Adam's direct descendent, and his DNA may have run through Yeshua's body as his grandchild. But as the Son of the Father, Adam was not Yeshua's father. 

As the begotten Son, Yeshua is the spiritual Son of the Father - adopted into the office so to speak - and the Father's "legal agent" so to speak - sent to do the things of the Father. Adam is another "legal agent" with a different key teaching something a little different but complementary. That may be the best I can explain it. Cheers everybody.

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

True, but read all of the other statements and teachings.  He was referring to Adam and stated that he was the Father of Jesus Christ.

Do you believe that BY never taught this or that he was just wrong regarding that teaching?  

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

TBH I have never sat down with all of BY's quotes on the subject to check. Most of the quotes are second hand through Woodruff and such. I have a real problem with second-hand quotes in the Church. I have seen just too many of them which don't ring true. Because of the lack of a verbatim record, I would want at least 2-3 statements from the JoD of BY saying that Adam is Yeshua's father to be sure BY taught that, before I would positively accept that he taught it.

The thing is in my view the key of Michael is being confused with our Adam - it is bigger than that. Since church members didn't understand it, it got recorded as BY teaching Adam was Yeshua's father. In a literal flesh sense that may be true - Mary may be Adam's direct descendent, and his DNA may have run through Yeshua's body as his grandchild. But as the Son of the Father, Adam was not Yeshua's father. 

As the begotten Son, Yeshua is the spiritual Son of the Father - adopted into the office so to speak - and the Father's "legal agent" so to speak - sent to do the things of the Father. Adam is another "legal agent" with a different key teaching something a little different but complementary. That may be the best I can explain it. Cheers everybody.

Is there an emoji for "chiming in"? I think it possible that he taught something right but which he may have communicated, recorded, or partly borrowed for temple ordinance purposes in a manner that was poorly understood. The internal contradictions* (if viewed with an eye toward the common/popular understanding of Adam-God) in a couple of latter-day scriptures give me reason to think that what is traditionally interpreted as Brigham Young’s teachings on Adam-God  may not be what he fully meant to convey:

Moses 6:50-54: “And he [Jehovah, The Lord God, the father of God the Father / Michael] called upon our father Adam [Michael] by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh [making us the children of The Lord God / Jehovah, not God the Father / Michael*]. And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me …in the name of mine Only Begotten Son [making The Lord God / Jehovah the father of Jesus, the Only Begotten Son*], who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ… And our father Adam [Michael] spake unto the Lord [Jehovah], and said: Why is it that men [thy spirit children before they were in the flesh*; and my progeny in the flesh] must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto Adam [Michael]: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden. Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son [Jesus] of God [Michael] hath atoned for original guilt…”

Moses 1:32-34: “…worlds without number have I [God the Father/Michael] created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I [Michael*] called Adam, which is many.” Here we have Michael referring to Himself as Adam in the third person (as also in Moses 2: 1, 26-27).

Moses 4: 28, 29: “And I, the Lord God* [Jehovah the Father of God the Father / Michael], said unto mine Only Begotten [pre-mortal Jesus]: Behold, the man* [mortal Michael / Adam] is become as one of us to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and partake also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, Therefore I [Michael], the Lord God*, will send him* [mortal Michael / Adam, or myself] forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he [mortal Michael / Adam, or myself] was taken…” Here we have Michael, the father of the Only Begotten, simultaneously speak and act as Jehovah (the Lord God, who is not the father of the Only Begotten) and/or as Michael, and then again in the third person as Adam (the subject spoken about, as also in Moses 3:18)

In addition, some of timeline does not follow:

By way of introduction: Adam was 622 years old when Enoch was born, 647 when he ordained Enoch (at age 25), and 687 when he blessed Enoch (at age 65; D&C 107:48); Adam lived another 243 years, and with Enoch walking with God for 365 years until he was taken up at 430 years old (D&C 107:49; year 1052), Enoch had to have had his vision before Adam died / was taken up at age 930.

So, Adam was yet mortal when Enoch received his revelation in Moses 6 (D&C 107:48-49). He could not have been speaking to Enoch in verses 26-28, calling him “my son” and explaining his history and relationship with his forefather Adam (as also detailed in verses 50-68).

Edited September 5, 2017 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

TBH I have never sat down with all of BY's quotes on the subject to check. Most of the quotes are second hand through Woodruff and such. I have a real problem with second-hand quotes in the Church. I have seen just too many of them which don't ring true. Because of the lack of a verbatim record, I would want at least 2-3 statements from the JoD of BY saying that Adam is Yeshua's father to be sure BY taught that, before I would positively accept that he taught it.

You mean like this one?

• "President Young followed and made many good remarks... He said that our God was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ, our God was no more or less than ADAM, Michael the Archangel. " 
  Wilford Woodruff Diary - Feb 19, 1854

Or this one:

• President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel, & he was the Father of Jesus Christ & was our God & that Joseph taught this principle.
  Wilford Woodruff Diary - Dec 16, 1867

 

They may not be in the Journals, but Woodruff's writings are just as first hand as the Journals are.  Dismissing them in favor of the Journals makes no historical sense.
Other than Woodruff see also:

• Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.  - BY JD 1:51
   
• Father Adam's oldest son, Jesus the Savior, who is the heir of the family, is Father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world and the only begotten according to the flesh (as it is written),  - BY as dictated to his secretary L. John Nuttall Feb. 7, 1877
   
• Another meeting this evening. President B. Young taught that Adam was the Father of Jesus and the only God to us. - Hosea Stout - Seventies president Diary 2:435 - April 9, 1852
   
• Jesus Christ was his God and the God and Father of Jesus Christ was Adam.  Heber C. Kimball - First Presidency Counselor  April 10, 1852 - 22nd Annual General Conference
   
• We believe in our God the great Prince of His race,
  The Archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days,
  Our own Father Adam, earth’s Lord, as is plain,
  Who’ll counsel and fight for his children again.
  We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ...
  - Hymn by Franklin Richards in the Church 1856 hymnal

Brigham taught Adam-God.  We may or may not agree with it, but the historical evidence is sufficient to meet any standard.
And he wasn't the only one.  Twenty years after Brigham died President Woodruff (also the prophet) said that "Adam is our father and God and no use to discuss it with Josephites or any one else. ".
 

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

"I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here"  I found it in the FAIR website https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory#cite_ref-3

If Satan made changes to the 116 pages, why not assume he also made changes to the statement above? I don't think that is Brigham Young unless you believe he can't tell the difference between the Spirit and his own ideas.  

I am realizing that Satan didn't magically have to change historical documents, he could have simply inspired men to make changes because many accounts we have are second and third hand.  Make no mistake Satan does have power because the Bible teaches there are two powers, in Exodus 7 Satan created serpents after watching Moses turn his rod into a serpent. 

 

There are a couple of things that you need to be aware of in addition to to the caveats that other posters have clued you into. The Journal of Discourses are a product of George D. Watt who was an expert in Pitman shorthand and became the chief recorder of the sermons preached by the first presidency. It has been discovered that Brother Watt had a penchant for editing those talks. He sometimes added words and sentences and deleted things also. There is an article explaining this on the BYU studies website called "The Prophets Have Spoken But What Did They Say?"  by Gerritt Dirkmat and LaJean Purcell Carruth. It is DRM encumbered so I can only quote a bit or two out of it under the Fair Use Doctrine. 

"Watt recorded the sermons in Pitman shorthand, which allowed him
to record individual words and sometimes phrases quickly and thus
capture the words of the speaker with significant accuracy as they were
spoken. To prepare the sermon for publication, Watt had to first tran-
scribe his shorthand record into longhand, and he edited and altered
the content as he transcribed. Further editing was apparently then per-
formed on this longhand version in preparation for publication, usually
by Watt himself.
The result of this transcription and editing process is a published ver-
sion of the speech that often has significant differences from the origi-
nally spoken words. In some cases, the variations are only slight, and the
thoughts and expressions, and indeed many of the words, published are
very close to the way that they were initially recorded. In most sermons
recorded by Watt and published in the Journal of Discourses or Deseret
News, however, there are significant variations. Some of these variations
are in fact so different from the initial record that historians and other
users should carefully re-evaluate the way they use these sources. While
the topic of the sermons and some of the general points can be garnered
from the published version of these speeches, the precise wording and
exact examples and phrases used by the speaker cannot be relied upon
with any degree of certainty."

There has been no extant shorthand record found of the particular speech in question, but Willford Woodruff was present when Brigham made this speech and recorded part of it from his notes. There are some differences between that and and the JOD version edited by Watt.

Our Father begot all the spirits that were before any tabernacle was made. When
our Father came into the Garden, He came with his celestial body and brought 
one of his wives with him and ate of the fruit of the garden until He could 
beget a tabernacle. And Adam is Michael or God and all the God that we have 
anything to do with. They ate of this fruit and formed the first tabernacle
that was formed.

Now here is the excerpt of the same sermon from the JOD

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

Note the difference? Willford Woodruff said "Our Father". George D. Watt said "Our Father Adam."

That makes a huge, huge difference in what Brigham may have meant.

Now I am going to quote another excerpt from a speech by Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses. I cannot argue again just how accurate it is, but I believe that Watt captured the essence of what Brigham Young was saying and corroborates the notes that Willford Woodruff copied into his journal.

After men have got their exaltations and their crowns − have become Gods, even the sons of God − are made
Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is
the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the
elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that
earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the
work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the
corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them,
according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.
JD 6:275, Brigham Young, August 28, 1852

 

Now if you are thoroughly confused, not to worry. People have tied themselves up in knots over this Adam-God thing for decades and probably will for decades to come if the Savior delays his return that long. But, from the things I have read, I do not believe that Brigham Young ever taught that Adam/Michael the Archangel came here as a Celestial being with celestial wife Eve and became mortal again, begat children, and dies again. That man was not that illogical or stupid.

Glenn

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

Samuel, Prophets are not infallible and make mistakes.  The position of the church is that Brigham Young was mistaken about his teachings regarding the Adam/God Doctrine.  There's no question that he taught it for over 25 years (and so did the other leaders of the church).  He even added it to the Temple endowment (look up "Lecture at the veil").  There are simply too many records and documents confirming that he taught it, for anyone to deny that.  

Your "Satan did it" theory, just doesn't work here.  The best thing is to accept that Prophets make mistakes at times.

(Also, Satan did not make changes to the 116 pages and you keep stating that he did.  Unless you have some evidence or proof of that, it is a false claim.)

ETA:

Not everyone believes that Brigham Young's teachings were erroneous.  I'm just stating what the current teachings are regarding it.

Prophets of the Bible all had personal demons; however, you will find that when a prophet of the Bible was presenting doctrine or writing the word of GOD he was being moved by the Holy Spirit and made NO mistakes. Fact was revealed as fact. Lies were revealed as lies, and prophecy comes to fruition. When a prophet is wrong, he is a false prophet according to the Bible.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

 

There are a couple of things that you need to be aware of in addition to to the caveats that other posters have clued you into. The Journal of Discourses are a product of George D. Watt who was an expert in Pitman shorthand and became the chief recorder of the sermons preached by the first presidency. It has been discovered that Brother Watt had a penchant for editing those talks. He sometimes added words and sentences and deleted things also. There is an article explaining this on the BYU studies website called "The Prophets Have Spoken But What Did They Say?"  by Gerritt Dirkmat and LaJean Purcell Carruth. It is DRM encumbered so I can only quote a bit or two out of it under the Fair Use Doctrine.

There has been no extant shorthand record found of the particular speech in question, but Willford Woodruff was present when Brigham made this speech and recorded part of it from his notes. There are some differences between that and and the JOD version edited by Watt.

Note the difference? Willford Woodruff said "Our Father". George D. Watt said "Our Father Adam."

That makes a huge, huge difference in what Brigham may have meant.

 

This argument only holds water if there weren't dozens of teachings corroborating this doctrine from Brigham.
The mistranscription argument doesn't fit with historical facts.  If anything, Watt was more accurate in this one than Woodruff based on the numerous other references.

[Glenn101]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This argument only holds water if there weren't dozens of teachings corroborating this doctrine from Brigham.
The mistranscription argument doesn't fit with historical facts.  If anything, Watt was more accurate in this one than Woodruff based on the numerous other references.

When there are two Adams things can get confusing.

Then when we have a statement by Willford Woodruff that Brigham Young taught in a sermon on August 31 1873 at Paris Idaho that "Mother Eve was the daughter of Adam."

That statement does not make sense, unless one goes back to the two Adams scenario for each world. An Adam that had obtained Godhood comes to a word and begets two children that are immortal, a male and a female Adam and Eve who will have to be raised to adulthood. Then the veil is drawn over their minds and they are married by God and given instructions, and the rest we sort of know. I can see Brigham teaching such. It comports with much of what we think we know about what Brigham Young taught on the subject.

There is a lot of confusion just in reading all of the different takes on the subject from different sources. Having a Heavenly Father Adam and an earthly father Adam is sure to engender confusion in the matter among latter day readers and even among the listeners of his day as is revealed in the differing reports that we have on the same sermon.

Now contrast this with the picture that is what I understand to be the standard version of the Adam-God theory. God creates the Garden of Eden and creates a man, Adam, out of the dust of the earth to dress the garden. He creates Eve out of one of Adam's ribs as a helpmeet for Adam giving them the instructions we read about in Genesis and the results. So, after living many hundreds of years they die and now are waiting for the resurrection that can only be realized upon the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But somehow Adam, in the spirit prison because there has yet been no redemption, is able to overshadow Mary to cause the conception of Jesus the Christ.

Do you believe that Brigham Young was irrational enough and/or stupid enough to believe such a scenario? Or to teach it?

Or do you have another option that I have not thought of?

Glenn

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Who is "that," and who is "he" and "his" in your sentence?

Fixed it Bob!

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

What does the 116 pages have to do with Brigham Young's statement?  Is there some relation?

Nothing Bob! Just saying that Satan probably made changes to the Journal of Discourses 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Now you are moving the goalposts.

 

Okay, I fixed the First Post. Bob told me to.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

"I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here"  I found it in the FAIR website https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory#cite_ref-3

If Satan made changes to the 116 pages, why not assume he also made changes to the statement above? I don't think that is Brigham Young unless you believe he can't tell the difference between the Spirit and his own ideas.  

I am realizing that Satan didn't magically have to change historical documents, he could have simply inspired men to make changes because many accounts we have are second and third hand.  Make no mistake Satan does have power because the Bible teaches there are two powers, in Exodus 7 Satan created serpents after watching Moses turn his rod into a serpent. 

I don't know where he got this idea, even words spoken by Joseph Smith, or commentaries on Joseph's could have been an addition to these teaching. But if ever this was believed, it is no longer taught, and a topic long abandoned Or by simple extension, Adam was "Made Lord over all the Earth". Also as scriptures teach even more complex issues, many are speculating, on such manners,  and such believe is not required to be a member in full standing. Also if he taught blasphemies, and we reject them, he will be judged , not us.. To mention once again the Church does not teach this today, if someone is doing so, report them. 

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

"I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here"  I found it in the FAIR website https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory#cite_ref-3

If Satan made changes to the 116 pages, why not assume he also made changes to the Journal of Discourses? I don't think Brigham Young said "which God revealed to me",  I doubt Young couldn't tell the difference between the spirit and his own thoughts.

I am realizing that Satan didn't magically have to change historical documents, he could have simply inspired men to make changes because many accounts we have are second and third hand.  Make no mistake Satan does have power because the Bible teaches there are two powers, in Exodus 7 Satan created serpents after watching Moses turn his rod into a serpent. 

Orson Pratt and Brigham Young disagreed vehemently on the Adam-God theory, and (in the course of time) Orson's view has prevailed.  You deliberately fail to mention that, as well as the fact that LDS leaders are not infallible.  Instead, you like to blame Satan, as though humans cannot make their own decisions.  This is the dishonest approach of anti-Mormons and apostates.

So too for Hebrew tannin in Exodus 7.  We don't even know for sure what the word means there, whether it means "jackal" or "serpent" (or something else), but it is not attributed to Satan there or elsewhere.  Your reckless lies are typical of apostates and anti-Mormons.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Prophets of the Bible all had personal demons; however, you will find that when a prophet of the Bible was presenting doctrine or writing the word of GOD he was being moved by the Holy Spirit and made NO mistakes. Fact was revealed as fact. Lies were revealed as lies, and prophecy comes to fruition. When a prophet is wrong, he is a false prophet according to the Bible.

It would be nice if Holy Scripture fit that description, but it does not. The Bible is filled with wide varieties of opinions by prophets of God and other people, many of them at loggerheads.  The Bible was produced by humans, who did their best to record received traditions and to explain God to us.  They did this in a wide variety of genres of literature over a period of thousands of years..  The interpretation is left to us, and we don't always get it right.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you believe Satan inspired men to do changes to the 116 pages? Why couldn't Satan do the same thing with many people?  Do you believe Satan has power? 

I don't believe in Satan, no.  Joseph Smith did though, and many cultures have attributed bad things that happen and fears they have to a Satan type force or character.    

I do believe in evil and I believe humans have evil tendencies and there seem to be times where evil perpetuates evil in an difficult to explain almost other worldly sense, so I'm somewhat agnostic about whether some kind of force outside ourselves exists that perpetuates evil.   

[SamuelTheLamanite]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Orson Pratt and Brigham Young disagreed vehemently on the Adam-God theory, and (in the course of time) Orson's view has prevailed.  You deliberately fail to mention that, as well as the fact that LDS leaders are not infallible.  Instead, you like to blame Satan, as though humans cannot make their own decisions.  This is the dishonest approach of anti-Mormons and apostates.

So too for Hebrew tannin in Exodus 7.  We don't even know for sure what the word means there, whether it means "jackal" or "serpent" (or something else), but it is not attributed to Satan there or elsewhere.  Your reckless lies are typical of apostates and anti-Mormons.

but that would imply that Brigham Young didn't know how to tell the difference the spirit and his own thoughts. Why is Satan changing the passage not a less complicated explanation? 

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe in Satan, no.  Joseph Smith did though, and many cultures have attributed bad things that happen and fears they have to a Satan type force or character.   

Why? Do you believe in God?

11 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I don't know where he got this idea, even words spoken by Joseph Smith, or commentaries on Joseph's could have been an addition to these teaching. But if ever this was believed, it is no longer taught, and a topic long abandoned Or by simple extension, Adam was "Made Lord over all the Earth". Also as scriptures teach even more complex issues, many are speculating, on such manners,  and such believe is not required to be a member in full standing. Also if he taught blasphemies, and we reject them, he will be judged , not us.. To mention once again the Church does not teach this today, if someone is doing so, report them. 

Both Penrose and Watson theories have problems according to other Mormon intellectuals.

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

When there are two Adams things can get confusing.

How do you know there are "two Adams" that Brigham was referring to?  From what I've seen, the two Adams theory doesn't hold up very well.  I think it originated with Elden Watson and even he admits that some of what Brigham stated doesn't line up very well with this theory (and then he just claims that Brigham was misunderstood or misquoted possibly). 

Edited September 6, 2017 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Now contrast this with the picture that is what I understand to be the standard version of the Adam-God theory. God creates the Garden of Eden and creates a man, Adam, out of the dust of the earth to dress the garden. He creates Eve out of one of Adam's ribs as a helpmeet for Adam giving them the instructions we read about in Genesis and the results. So, after living many hundreds of years they die and now are waiting for the resurrection that can only be realized upon the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But somehow Adam, in the spirit prison because there has yet been no redemption, is able to overshadow Mary to cause the conception of Jesus the Christ.

Do you believe that Brigham Young was irrational enough and/or stupid enough to believe such a scenario? Or to teach it?

That is not even close to the standard version of Adam-God. 
Perhaps you should reread the doctrine.

[HappyJackWagon]

Man, this stuff is a mess!

When the prophets of God can't agree on who God is there is a Big problem. If one tries blaming it on Satan they are really blaming the confusion on God who apparently isn't powerful enough to overcome Satan's nefarious plan and excellent PR skills.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Why? Do you believe in God?

Depends on the day of the week.  Today, I say yes, and I tend to gravitate towards a Panentheist construct.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps you should reread the doctrine.

Here is the information as to the Adam-God theory that I picked up off the FAIR site.

"Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father.
Based on these remarks, (the April 9 1852 sermon) and others he made in public and in private, it is apparent that Brigham Young believed that:
Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind, as well as being the first parent of our physical bodies.
Adam and Eve came to this earth as resurrected, exalted personages.
Adam and Eve fell and became mortal in order to create physical bodies for their spirit children.
Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.

This is the version that have had "taught" to me in various venues over the years. That is what I was responding to. What is your version?

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Here is the information as to the Adam-God theory that I picked up off the FAIR site.

"Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father.
Based on these remarks, (the April 9 1852 sermon) and others he made in public and in private, it is apparent that Brigham Young believed that:
Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind, as well as being the first parent of our physical bodies.
Adam and Eve came to this earth as resurrected, exalted personages.
Adam and Eve fell and became mortal in order to create physical bodies for their spirit children.
Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.

This is the version that have had "taught" to me in various venues over the years. That is what I was responding to. What is your version?

 

This version is a correct description of Brigham's teachings.  Perhaps I misunderstood the bolded part in your earlier statement as referring to description immediately following it.

Quote

"Now contrast this with the picture that is what I understand to be the standard version of the Adam-God theory. God creates the Garden of Eden and creates a man, Adam, out of the dust of the earth to dress the garden. He creates Eve out of one of Adam's ribs as a helpmeet for Adam giving them the instructions we read about in Genesis and the results. So, after living many hundreds of years they die and now are waiting for the resurrection that can only be realized upon the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But somehow Adam, in the spirit prison because there has yet been no redemption, is able to overshadow Mary to cause the conception of Jesus the Christ. "

As per Brigham
God did not actually create man out of the dust of this earth.
God did not create Eve out of Adam's rib.
Adam and Eve did not die, did not go to the spirit prison.
Adam as a resurrected God fathered Christ with Mary.

There is no need for the two Adam theory.  It fills a hole that doesn't need to be filled.
 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Man, this stuff is a mess!

When the prophets of God can't agree on who God is there is a Big problem. If one tries blaming it on Satan they are really blaming the confusion on God who apparently isn't powerful enough to overcome Satan's nefarious plan and excellent PR skills.

To be fair it is a mess because there are numerous conflicting ideas.
But I don't think any idea on its own is a mess.

The Church today seems to understand its current beliefs just fine as established around the turn of the 20th century.
Those in the mid to late 19th century (Brigham's day) that were taught the Adam-God doctrine and accepted it seemed to have no difficulty.
Those like Orson Pratt and Father Bunker who disagreed with Brigham did it because they disagreed with the doctrine, not due to it being confusing.
Those in Joseph's Kirtland period seemed to understand that version of the Godhead well even though it was to be developed further.

Differing ideas just point to a need for revelation and personal study.  The mess only seems to come when we try to argue that the teachings haven't changed and can all be reconciled as correct.
That's how we end up with things like the two Adam theory.