Brigham Young?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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? 

Why? Do you believe in God?

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

When I say, "report them", I do not mean it in a kindergarten sort of way, or in an honor code sort of way. But it is the duty of every Priesthood holder (especially High Priest) to watch over their Wards and Stakes. I also do not mean to have malice, "one towards another", for if this were our motivation, we would no better than those who seek to lead others away. In fact it is the duty to challenge anyone who is teaching in such a way, as to become "a stumbling block". As members we have a divine right to keep the "wolves in sheeps clothing, (out) not sparing the flock". Members come to Church, for the majority of the time, to be lifted up, to be edified (if that is not redundant)  , and to be healed. All members have this birthright, and should expect this in every meeting, Sisters too. We all suffer affliction, be it in body or soul, and being among faithful members, and having the gospel preached is how by the "Balm of Gilead", that we might be healed. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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? 

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

Like you or me, Brother Brigham is entitled to his own opinions, justified or not as they may be.  And we are all entitled to measure any such statements via the Holy Spirit.  Your Satanic explanation is simple all right, just as simple as the fairy tale about Santa Claus told to children (or the tooth fairy, or the stork, etc.).  Does that make it the truth?  Or is that just another copout?  Why are you afraid to apply the Holy Spirit to such questions?  Reminds me of the Nephites who declared that Samuel the Lamanite had a devil inside him (Hela 16:6).  We expect such silly statements from children and yokels.  They just don't know any better. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

No. The mess is a result of a failure of an underlying principle of Mormonism: Follow the prophet, he knows the way.

If a prophet of God cannot be relied upon to understand the nature of God and who He is, then there isn't much reason to trust in the other teachings and proclamations from the prophets.

I'm fine with the understanding that different men at different times will have different understandings. What I'm not fine with is the over-claiming that the prophet can be trusted to know and share the word of God with the world. Prophet Vs. Prophet. This is not a triviality and is in fact at the heart of why so many people lose faith in the church, even if they maintain faith in Jesus Christ, which is really the only place faith should rest anyway.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. The mess is a result of a failure of an underlying principle of Mormonism: Follow the prophet, he knows the way.

If a prophet of God cannot be relied upon to understand the nature of God and who He is, then there isn't much reason to trust in the other teachings and proclamations from the prophets.

I'm fine with the understanding that different men at different times will have different understandings. What I'm not fine with is the over-claiming that the prophet can be trusted to know and share the word of God with the world. Prophet Vs. Prophet. This is not a triviality and is in fact at the heart of why so many people lose faith in the church, even if they maintain faith in Jesus Christ, which is really the only place faith should rest anyway.

I agree with you about the overreliance on the prophet.
The prophet holds the keys of priesthood necessary to administer all the ordinances to return to God.  That we should follow.
Expecting them to be flawless in their doctrine is unreasonable.

Heaven forbid we study and learn for ourselves.  We really can do that, come to a doctrinal disagreement with the prophet, and yet still sustain their calling and authority.
I have little respect for members who, just for example, would agree with Brigham Young on Adam-God had they lived then yet agree with Spencer W. Kimball in his day just because they are both prophets.
People need to know for themselves.

[HappyJackWagon]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with you about the overreliance on the prophet.
The prophet holds the keys of priesthood necessary to administer all the ordinances to return to God.  That we should follow.
Expecting them to be flawless in their doctrine is unreasonable.

Heaven forbid we study and learn for ourselves.  We really can do that, come to a doctrinal disagreement with the prophet, and yet still sustain their calling and authority.
I have little respect for members who, just for example, would agree with Brigham Young on Adam-God had they lived then yet agree with Spencer W. Kimball in his day just because they are both prophets.
People need to know for themselves.

Come on, JLHPROF. Talk about a massive overstatement. I don't expect a prophet to be flawless, but I do expect them to know the nature of God. I don't think that's asking too much.

You're right about the need for people to study and learn for themselves. I think that's exactly what's going on with so many people choosing to do. But why follow a prophet's doctrines and proclamations when he can't be trusted with the most fundamental truth?

The definition of a prophet as the authority...as the key-holder in administering ordinances is a modern interpretation and hardly follows  "God's pattern" that is often part of missionary discussions. In fact, I think the most important lesson of the First Vision is that every person can have a personal relationship with God without an intermediary, but the organizational church opts instead to turn it upside down and use it as a claim of authority so that others will follow their authority as intermediary to the mind and will of God. That's fine. They can claim that. But it doesn't bode well when they over-claim and it becomes known that the most righteous, inspired prophets can't agree about who God is and whether or not their specific understanding  is the only way for a person to receive salvation. Like I said. It's a mess.

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

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). 

I got the idea several years ago and could not remember the source. I sill cannot remember where I first read it.It was not from Elden Watson. I am familiar with his articles on the Adam-God theory. I am going to quote from the Journal of Discourses because it is the main source of the original theory.

First is this one:

Now to the facts in the case; all the difference between Jesus Christ and any other man that ever lived on the
earth, from the days of Adam until now, is simply this, the Father, after He had once been in the flesh, and
lived as we live, obtained His exaltation, attained to thrones, gained the ascendancy over principalities and
powers, and had the knowledge and power to create − to bring forth and organize the elements upon natural
principles. This He did after His ascension, or His glory, or His eternity, and was actually classed with the
Gods, with the beings who create, with those who have kept the celestial law while in the flesh, and again
obtained their bodies. Then He was prepared to commence the work of creation, as the Scriptures teach. It is
all here in the Bible; I am not telling you a word but what is contained in that book.
Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and
lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been
created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth,
until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the
coarse materials of this earth.
JD 4:218, Brigham Young, February 8, 1857
********************************************************************************************************

Next  we have this one:

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.
This is a key for you. The faithful will become Gods, even the sons of God; but this does not overthrow the
idea that we have a father. Adam is my father; (this I will explain to you at some future time;) but it does not
prove that he is not my father, if I became a God: it does not prove that I have not a father.
JD 6:275 − p.276, Brigham Young, August 28, 1852

**************************************************************************************************************

The first one lays out what Brigham seemingly believed about how Adam and Eve came to obtain their earthly but immortal tabernacles. This particular viewpoint is corroborated pretty well by Willford Woodruff in his journal notes on the April 9 1852 Sermon which started the whole thing.

The next one lays out what Brigham seemingly believed about how those who obtain the fullness of the celestial glory will also become Adams to... to produce their own immortal offspring in a garden to become the first man and woman, an Adam and Eve to another world.

This stuff is not well laid out and the way Brigham refers to Adam in different sermons is really confusing. The transcription and editing process almost certainly had something to do with that. Unfortunately we do not have any of Brigham's original words because his speeches were almost exclusively contemporaneous.

The Journal of Discourses is a hodgepodge in that respect. There are some sermons that come after the original post which adhere to the orthodox understanding of the relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. Then there are others that suggest a more radical theory.

Then there are those that are complete head scratchers such as :

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael,
these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in
the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. JD 1:51, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852

I think this last has to be a mistake in transcription or such. I have never heard anyone or read any sermon by anyone that equates Adam/Michael the Archangel with the Holy Ghost.

I am not trying to prove that Brigham did not teach some sort of Adam-God Doctrine. I am only showing that there are enough contractions and uncertainty in terms used in the different sermons that have been transcribed and edited with numerous contradictions that we can not be sure as to exactly what he taught.

Glenn
 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours 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.

God allowed Satan to make changes. 

I don't believe Young said, " which God revealed to me"  because he was a prophet , Young knew the difference between the Spirit and his own thoughts.  

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Like you or me, Brother Brigham is entitled to his own opinions, justified or not as they may be.  And we are all entitled to measure any such statements via the Holy Spirit.  Your Satanic explanation is simple all right, just as simple as the fairy tale about Santa Claus told to children (or the tooth fairy, or the stork, etc.).  Does that make it the truth?  Or is that just another copout?  Why are you afraid to apply the Holy Spirit to such questions?  Reminds me of the Nephites who declared that Samuel the Lamanite had a devil inside him (Hela 16:6).  We expect such silly statements from children and yokels.  They just don't know any better. 

Young was a prophet, he was an expert in following the spirit. Not perfect, but Young knew the difference between the spirit and his own thoughts. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

The first one lays out what Brigham seemingly believed about how Adam and Eve came to obtain their earthly but immortal tabernacles. This particular viewpoint is corroborated pretty well by Willford Woodruff in his journal notes on the April 9 1852 Sermon which started the whole thing.
The next one lays out what Brigham seemingly believed about how those who obtain the fullness of the celestial glory will also become Adams to... to produce their own immortal offspring in a garden to become the first man and woman, an Adam and Eve to another world.

These are two sides of the same coin, not a reference to two kinds of Adam.

Quote

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael,
these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in
the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. JD 1:51, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852

I think this last has to be a mistake in transcription or such. I have never heard anyone or read any sermon by anyone that equates Adam/Michael the Archangel with the Holy Ghost.

Not at all.
The mistake is assuming the 3rd member of the Godhead is always the "Holy Ghost".  Joseph described the third member as the witness or testator.
In our current Godhead that is the Holy Ghost.  In the creation Godhead Michael/Adam was the witness to the actions of Eloheim and Jehovah (the Gods watched...).  Brigham also referred to Yahovah Michael.

These are offices, not personages.  Michael isn't the Holy Ghost.  Michael was the witness/testator, as is the Holy Ghost today.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

God allowed Satan to make changes. 

I don't believe Young said, " which God revealed to me"  because he was a prophet , Young knew the difference between the Spirit and his own thoughts.  

What did Satan change?
The historical records are multiple and consistent.  Brigham really did teach Adam-God. 

[Bob Crockett]

 

19 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 

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

I'm not saying the Journal of Discourses is perfect, but we have plenty of evidence that the proofs for the sheets to be used in the Journal of Discourses were read to Brigham Young by his clerks before publication in the Deseret News.  Whereas the text and shorthand reporting might not have correctly reported what was accurately said, what was published was what Brigham Young wanted published.  

In other words, official edits and ratification (the published words) are much more indicative of an institution's policies rather than what is uttered in meetings.  Plus, once the Deseret News sermons got into print, there were many eyes on the sermons and there are opportunities to correct.  We know that happened because Brigham Young took exception to the sermons of Moses Thatcher and Orson Pratt, among others.  Moses Thatcher was removed from his position as a result and Orson Pratt's sermonizing was reduced and modified.  

Now, what was published wasn't perfect, either.  I think that some of the statements in the Journal of Discourses where one of the speakers tries to make a joke doesn't really shine forth in the written pages.  Some of the jokes seem absurd.  One speaker complained about the elders marrying the pretty ones in Europe and sending the others the Zion unmarried.  It probably caused a lot of laughs but the critics of the church seize on it today.

So, "Satan" obviously is the king of confusion, and every time I stumble when I go out for a run or call one of my children by another kid's name, I suppose one could attribute that to Satan.  But not a wholesale denunciation of the JoD.  It is one of the most-frequently cited sources in the general conferences over time.

But, of course, your irrelevant point is about God or Satan deceiving us all with the geological record as to relates to evolution.  I suppose if you are willing to reject wholesale the findings of science that is an acceptable explanation.  I certainly heard it growing up from my highly-educated mother.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

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.
 

I have searched the Journal of Discourses at length looking for an indication that Brigham Young taught that Adam and Eve did not die and go to spirit prison. I am not sure about the Spirit Prison part, but here are the two references that I have found pertaining to Adam and Eve.

 When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. JD 1:51, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852

"Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all High Priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam−ondi−ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing. And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the Prince, the Archangel. JD 10:355, Brigham Young, November 6, 1864

The first was from the original Adam-God sermon as it is commonly viewed which affirms that Adam and Eve did indeed become mortal. The second one is actually quoting D&C 107:53, which affirms that Adam at least died.

As I noted in a post to ALarson,  the JOD is rife with contradictions just with the speeches by Brigham Young concerning his theory about Adam. I do not believe that anyone can adduce a coherent theory from those speeches.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

These are two sides of the same coin, not a reference to two kinds of Adam.

And your scriptural reference for this is?

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not at all.
The mistake is assuming the 3rd member of the Godhead is always the "Holy Ghost".  Joseph described the third member as the witness or testator.
In our current Godhead that is the Holy Ghost.  In the creation Godhead Michael/Adam was the witness to the actions of Eloheim and Jehovah (the Gods watched...).  Brigham also referred to Yahovah Michael.

These are offices, not personages.  Michael isn't the Holy Ghost.  Michael was the witness/testator, as is the Holy Ghost today.

Why is it a mistake to assume something that has been taught as far back as I can remember? When was the Holy Ghost released from His calling? Do you have any scriptural references to give credence to that assertion?

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Young was a prophet, he was an expert in following the spirit. Not perfect, but Young knew the difference between the spirit and his own thoughts. 

You emphasize that Brigham was a prophet, as though that lends automatic credibility to anything he says -- because he supposedly had a better pipeline to God than the rest of us.  As Brigham himself pointed out, every statement he made was dependent for verification upon the personal testimony of those hearing or reading his statements.  Why do you consistently ignore that obligation, just as the anti-Mormons and apostates do?

[LittleNipper]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

II Peter 1:20

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things.

[Robert F. Smith]

38 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

II Peter 1:20

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things.

2 Pt 1:20-21 means that prophecy contained within Scripture is not to be privately interpreted, but instead to be interpreted by the same method in which it came -- by the Holy Spirit, which is a claim rejected by the Protestant world (which prefers to simply read the English text alone, as though it was given in English by God).  It is helpful to read the footnotes in the 1599 Geneva Bible:

Quote

The Prophets are to be read, but so that we ask of God the gift of interpretation: for he that is the author of the writings of the Prophets, is also the interpreter of them.

He joineth the Scripture and prophecy together to distinguish true prophecies from false.

For all interpretation cometh from God. 

If anyone truly wants to know the meaning of Scripture or prophecy he can ask in accordance with Jesus' advice in Luke 11:9-10, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

John 16:13, "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."  1 Cor 12:3, "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."  1 John 5:6, " it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth."  Compare Matt 16:17, John 20:29, James 1:5.

How is Scripture to be correctly parsed?  2 Tim 2:15.

Proverbs 3:5 " Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."

Edited September 7, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

As I noted in a post to ALarson,  the JOD is rife with contradictions just with the speeches by Brigham Young concerning his theory about Adam. I do not believe that anyone can adduce a coherent theory from those speeches.

Well, many have attempted a "coherent theory" from those speeches, including Leonard Arrington and the several biographers of Brigham Young.  I've read the JoD from cover to cover(s).   I don't see that it is "rife with contradictions."   I see that the Brethren had their individual views of things.  I'm not sure that Orson Pratt believed in the literal physicality of the Father and Son.  Yes, there are contradictions, just as there are contradictions in the books authored by the various presidents of the church and in the messages of the first presidency. But mostly there are no contradictions.  Almost all of the JoD sermons are on basic teachings of the Gospel or on practical matters such as raising fruit.

I get a lot of peace in reading from the JoD.  I picture myself in that sermon thinking that the Church isn't much different today than it was then.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Well, many have attempted a "coherent theory" from those speeches, including Leonard Arrington and the several biographers of Brigham Young.  I've read the JoD from cover to cover(s).   I don't see that it is "rife with contradictions."   I see that the Brethren had their individual views of things.  I'm not sure that Orson Pratt believed in the literal physicality of the Father and Son.  Yes, there are contradictions, just as there are contradictions in the books authored by the various presidents of the church and in the messages of the first presidency. But mostly there are no contradictions.  Almost all of the JoD sermons are on basic teachings of the Gospel or on practical matters such as raising fruit.

I get a lot of peace in reading from the JoD.  I picture myself in that sermon thinking that the Church isn't much different today than it was then.

Oh I agree about people attempting to adduce a coherent theory from the speeches. I have not read the one by Arrington. I would like to see what he has to say. You are probably correct concerning the contradictions. You are in a much better position to make that assessment. I have not read any of them cover to cover. Most of the contradictions I have found are concerning the Adam-God theory. So much of what Brigham is quoted as saying is pretty much orthodox with the relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and Adam. But there are confusing aspects of it also. And contradictory aspects.

I did point out one where Brigham is quoted as saying that the Godhead consisted of God the Father, Jesus the Christ, and Michael the Archangel. That does not find any congruence with LDS theology that I am aware of. I believe there may have been a problem transcription process there.

After perusing some of the sermons, I do believe that you are correct in your last statement. The general concerns seemed to be pretty much the same as we have today. The differences seem to be mostly in circumstances of the day then versus today.

I do believe that I would have enjoyed listening to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or Parley P. Pratt. I think though that my narcolepsy would have kicked in during an Orson Pratt sermon. 

Glenn

[talltimber]

I happened to see this thread.  

It has occurred to me that in the Adam-God teachings of President Young have two issues: 1. the issue of what is correct and incorrect in what he taught, and 2. the issue that if he was wrong, then we know that the President of the church can be wrong about serious matters.  And church Presidents after him, claiming their authority through him, can also be wrong about serious matters-- including also whether President Young was wrong.

What is needed is further revelation.  I still believe the revelations in the Second Book of Commandments are from the Lord and do reconcile President Young's Adam-God teachings with the church scriptures.  These revelations show that President Young was incorrect in teaching that Adam was the physical father of Jesus, but most of what he said about Adam-God was correct.

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

And your scriptural reference for this is?

Why is it a mistake to assume something that has been taught as far back as I can remember? When was the Holy Ghost released from His calling? Do you have any scriptural references to give credence to that assertion?

Glenn

What would be the purpose of the Holy Ghost prior to the creation of the world and mortality when we all were in the presence of God?

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

What would be the purpose of the Holy Ghost prior to the creation of the world and mortality when we all were in the presence of God?

That is a question for which I have no answer. That is the first and only time I have heard of Adam possibly being part of the actual Godhead. There is no mention of the role the Holy Ghost played in the pre-existence. His role there as a testator was not needed because we were all in the presence of God. It is an intriguing question, i.e what was the Holy Ghost's role before the fall?

Glenn

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, talltimber said:

These revelations show that President Young was incorrect in teaching that Adam was the physical father of Jesus, but most of what he said about Adam-God was correct.

Not if Brigham was referring to God the Father when he was talking about Adam or Father Adam in that instance. We have the problem of Brigham's words being filtered through the lens of his recorders, chiefly George D. Watt who did make some significant editorial changes to the words Brigham said.

Glenn

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

God allowed Satan to make changes. 

I don't believe Young said, " which God revealed to me"  because he was a prophet , Young knew the difference between the Spirit and his own thoughts.  

Claiming Brigham Young couldn't tell the difference between his thoughts and the spirit is actually a more generous and empathetic position to take.  "He did his best and simply made mistakes" as opposed to "He was an authoritarian jerk who got it wrong on purpose".

Your position that Satan changed the JoD is laughable. Seriously, man? I'm kind of embarrassed for you. Is God a jerk that would let Satan alter something like that, and then not correct it, in an attempt to throw all of his most loyal followers off the trail of truth? God would have to be a real tool. Or he would have to be very weak and not be able to withstand a more powerful Satan.

By doubling down and digging in your heels on this kind of issue to protect your understanding of BY and prophets, you are in fact elevating Satan over God. IMO- It's a foolish move to throw God under the bus to protect a man, but to each his own.

[LittleNipper]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

2 Pt 1:20-21 means that prophecy contained within Scripture is not to be privately interpreted, but instead to be interpreted by the same method in which it came -- by the Holy Spirit, which is a claim rejected by the Protestant world (which prefers to simply read the English text alone, as though it was given in English by God).  It is helpful to read the footnotes in the 1599 Geneva Bible:

I

Actually, 2 Peter 1:20-21 means far deeper than merely regarding the interpretation of scripture. It also means that those writing the Bible did so with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and not of their own volition and imagination. In other words, a true prophet of GOD makes no scriptural errors because in truth he is being enlightened and motivated by the Holy Spirit.  Not everyone who claims to be some prophet is and that truth is exposed by errors in their writings such claim to be inspired. Such are referred in the Bible as FALSE PROPHETS.

Edited September 7, 2017 by LittleNipper

[SamuelTheLamanite]

 

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your position that Satan changed the JoD is laughable. Seriously, man? I'm kind of embarrassed for you. Is God a jerk that would let Satan alter something like that, and then not correct it, in an attempt to throw all of his most loyal followers off the trail of truth? God would have to be a real tool. Or he would have to be very weak and not be able to withstand a more powerful Satan.

God allowed Satan to change the 116 pages. If Satan did it once why wouldn't he do it again? 

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Claiming Brigham Young couldn't tell the difference between his thoughts and the spirit is actually a more generous and empathetic position to take. 

Impossible. He could tell the difference because he was an expert on revelation, he was a prophet. I only expect that from recent converts or less active members. 

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Like you or me, Brother Brigham is entitled to his own opinions, justified or not as they may be.  And we are all entitled to measure any such statements via the Holy Spirit.  Your Satanic explanation is simple all right, just as simple as the fairy tale about Santa Claus told to children (or the tooth fairy, or the stork, etc.).  Does that make it the truth?  Or is that just another copout?  Why are you afraid to apply the Holy Spirit to such questions?  Reminds me of the Nephites who declared that Samuel the Lamanite had a devil inside him (Hela 16:6).  We expect such silly statements from children and yokels.  They just don't know any better. 

Did you pray to know if Brigham taught Adam/God? We pray to confirm true doctrines, if we don't get an answer it means the teaching is not true. You won't get an answer because Adam/God is false doctrine, but that doesn't mean Young taught Adam/God.