Brigham Young?

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't care what he wants to write and publish.
But his future gravestone in the SLC cemetery really rubs me the wrong way.  Insult to Hyrum Smith's memory.

He certainly has a high opinion of himself. Again, I don't understand the attraction. 

[jkwilliams]

If I sounded like I was mocking the poster's belief, I'm sorry. I should be more respectful.

[Bob Crockett]

9 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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

As I have pointed out, your observation is really untenable.

Suppose you gave a speech for work from a script you prepared.   A stenographer took down your speech and gave it to you for permission to publish on the company's website.  The stenographer made some edits -- cleaned up bad grammar and said things consistent with the company line that you didn't say.  You read the reported speech and think to yourself --  I like this better than what I actually said.  You approve it for publication.   So, under this scenario, exactly how is it relevant or material that the stenographer cleaned up your speech?

Because that is what Watt did.  The speeches were read by clerks to Pres. Young who approved their publication.  They were published in the Deseret News; if there were problems they could have been fixed before Watt published the JoD.

When Elder Poelman's speech was altered by the Church before publication about 20 years ago, we all know it was altered.  But what is more consistent with Church policy and doctrine?  The uttered speech or the published, non-existing, speech?  Really now, this is commonplace.   When Elder Maxwell was sustained in General Conference, I was there.  I heard him specifically say one sentence about his apostolic witness.  It did not make it into the printed version.  Which is the version we are supposed to understand?

It may be indeed the case that Watt's typescript differs from the speeches as presented.  But there is no evidence that the Church didn't approve the publication of the speeches, and the fact that they appeared in the official Church organ means they approved them.  Any evidence that the Deseret News speeches differed from the JoD version?  None.

For similar reasons, i question the value of the Book of Mormon critical text project.   What is important to know?  The version the typesetter first set, or the one we have today?

Edited September 7, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't care what he wants to write and publish.
But his future gravestone in the SLC cemetery really rubs me the wrong way.  Insult to Hyrum Smith's memory.

There should be a law against spam on gravestones....

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

There should be a law against spam on gravestones....

Especially spam made with Microsoft Paint.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

People get released from callings, if the Godhead is a calling than I can see the possibility of composition changing depending on need.

Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages, according to Abraham's record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 190)

Abraham 4:1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time.  - Joseph Smith KFD

 The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through---Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take that view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfections of the Gods.


Offices, appointments, callings, and covenants. 
 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

And when was the terminology of his day using begotten to mean adopted instead of conceived?  Or when was a man described as having received his exaltation and Godhood in possession of a Terrestrial body?
Did he fall twice?

"Begotten

BEGOT', BEGOT'TEN, participle passive of get. Procreated; generated."

"Adopted

ADOPT'ED, participle passive Taken as one's own; received as son and heir; selected for use."

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Adopted

Can CV show any usages by BY of the term "begotten" where it is used to mean "adopted"?

 

[Johnnie Cake]

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 9:26 AM, 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. 

Satan is a fictional construct of religion, doesn't exist, never did.  You are responsible for your own actions and choices...don't go blaming all of them on this mystical construct of religion...choose wisely

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Because that is what Watt did.  The speeches were read by clerks to Pres. Young who approved their publication.  They were published in the Deseret News; if there were problems they could have been fixed before Watt published the JoD.

While I'm somewhat sympathetic to this charge, it also assumes they viewed their sermons the way we do now. Things were first off a lot looser in that era with far more speculation and disagreement among figures. It also ignores the fact that they didn't take the Journal of Discourses seriously. It was primarily a way for Watt to make some money since he wasn't really earning enough at the Deseret News. Letting him do the JD was basically a favor to him and they weren't even't published in the US. Only England initially. So reading back into the transcriptions a concern with getting things right is really acontextual. You could say they should have done that, but that assumes they understood how they'd become used. It seems clear they didn't think people would be referring to them in the way they developed. 

A must read paper on all this is Gerrit Drikmaat & LaJean Purcell Carruth's "The Prophets Have Spoken, but What Did They Say?"  They did an interview on LDS Perspectives where they get into the issue of how the Journal of Discourses was initially viewed and why there wasn't much concern for accuracy.

 Heber C. Kimball got rather annoyed at revisions to his sermons. Noting the presence of Watt and John V. Long there to record a sermon he told them "do not stick in your own stuff put in words said" (according to Long's transcript). One antagonistic reporter during the Utah War suggested Brigham liked his sermons being revised so he could say things and not be held to account for what he said. While there's some early evidence that people were aware of changes and approving them Drikmaat says that this may not have been consistent. There are examples of things published Brigham Young didn't approve. Quoting their paper.

Quote

Despite this early reference, however, we do not have ongoing and  later evidence of Young’s systematic examination of every sermon before they were published. Even when Young’s review was generally intended, anecdotal evidence suggests that things were sometimes published in the Deseret News of which Young did not approve. For instance, an  August 18, 1854, entry in the Historian’s  Journal records Brigham Young’s anger at a recent publication of the serialized “History of Joseph Smith” because there were some items he had wanted cut out and others he had wanted to insert. Ostensibly, every part of the “History” was  reviewed and approved before it was published, but this entry demon-strates the contrary.

 

Edited September 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While I'm somewhat sympathetic to this charge, it also assumes they viewed their sermons the way we do now. Things were first off a lot looser in that era with far more speculation and disagreement among figures. It also ignores the fact that they didn't take the Journal of Discourses seriously. It was primarily a way for Watt to make some money since he wasn't really earning enough at the Deseret News. Letting him do the JD was basically a favor to him and they weren't even't published in the US. Only England initially. So reading back into the transcriptions a concern with getting things right is really acontextual. You could say they should have done that, but that assumes they understood how they'd become used. It seems clear they didn't think people would be referring to them in the way they developed. 

A must read paper on all this is Gerrit Drikmaat & LaJean Purcell Carruth's "The Prophets Have Spoken, but What Did They Say?"  They did an interview on LDS Perspectives where they get into the issue of how the Journal of Discourses was initially viewed and why there wasn't much concern for accuracy.

 Heber C. Kimball got rather annoyed at revisions to his sermons. Noting the presence of Watt and John V. Long there to record a sermon he told them "do not stick in your own stuff put in words said" (according to Long's transcript). One antagonistic reporter during the Utah War suggested Brigham liked his sermons being revised so he could say things and not be held to account for what he said. While there's some early evidence that people were aware of changes and approving them Drikmaat says that this may not have been consistent. There are examples of things published Brigham Young didn't approve. Quoting their paper.

I'm a bit confused. Are you suggesting the Adam-God theory was an insertion by Watt that somehow wasn't reviewed by Brigham Young? 

[Johnnie Cake]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm a bit confused. Are you suggesting the Adam-God theory was an insertion by Watt that somehow wasn't reviewed by Brigham Young? 

It is impossible to detached BY from AG...note that AG was part of the Temple lecture for nearly 25 years

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Was_the_"Adam-God"_theory_ever_taught_as_part_of_the_temple_endowment_ceremony_as_something_called_"the_lecture_at_the_veil"%3F

Edited September 7, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While I'm somewhat sympathetic to this charge, it also assumes they viewed their sermons the way we do now. Things were first off a lot looser in that era with far more speculation and disagreement among figures. It also ignores the fact that they didn't take the Journal of Discourses seriously. It was primarily a way for Watt to make some money since he wasn't really earning enough at the Deseret News. Letting him do the JD was basically a favor to him and they weren't even't published in the US. Only England initially. So reading back into the transcriptions a concern with getting things right is really acontextual. You could say they should have done that, but that assumes they understood how they'd become used. It seems clear they didn't think people would be referring to them in the way they developed.

A must read paper on all this is Gerrit Drikmaat & LaJean Purcell Carruth's "The Prophets Have Spoken, but What Did They Say?"  They did an interview on LDS Perspectives where they get into the issue of how the Journal of Discourses was initially viewed and why there wasn't much concern for accuracy.

 Heber C. Kimball got rather annoyed at revisions to his sermons. Noting the presence of Watt and John V. Long there to record a sermon he told them "do not stick in your own stuff put in words said" (according to Long's transcript). One antagonistic reporter during the Utah War suggested Brigham liked his sermons being revised so he could say things and not be held to account for what he said. While there's some early evidence that people were aware of changes and approving them Drikmaat says that this may not have been consistent. There are examples of things published Brigham Young didn't approve. Quoting their paper.

 

Very interesting.
The whole mistranscribed argument as far as Adam-God goes is a red herring.  Brigham repeated himself too often for that.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Very interesting.
The whole mistranscribed argument as far as Adam-God goes is a red herring.  Brigham repeated himself too often for that.

I find it shocking that this is even in dispute.

But I guess if people choose to blame Satan for physically altering the Journal of Discourses, then they clearly have a vested interest in rejecting any fact that might challenge their sure knowledge.

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm a bit confused. Are you suggesting the Adam-God theory was an insertion by Watt that somehow wasn't reviewed by Brigham Young? 

No. I'm just speaking of the claim about Watts and all of Young's sermons in the Deseret News being approved by people. That first off clearly isn't true but also reads back ahistorically how we view transcripts. They've not finished going through all Watt's shorthand so I don't think we know how many statements on Adam/God are affected. However from an historian's perspective it seems like we have fairly abundant evidence for Brigham's views so I don't think the issue is really tied to Watt's transcripts.

While the 9 April 1852 sermon is the one everyone quotes, I don't think its accuracy is essential for determining Brigham's beliefs. That said I think there are reasons to question it given Watt recorded it. However the John Nuttall diary from Feb 7, 1877 on the lecture at the veil is ultimately far more significant. Further the fact it was repeated so many times means it doesn't hinge on one sermon in 1852.

Where Watt's expansions and redactions might be more significant is looking for nuance in the details of the theology and its evolution. However I suspect we'll have to wait for the critical text from Watt's shorthand. That'll take a few years. I bet there will be a series of MHA papers based upon that data that might revise some arguments for a slew of positions. The one most discussed already was Young's views on slavery and blacks from his infamous state house statements that apparently are quite different from what he actually said. I believe there's at least one book making use of that data coming out soon.

Edited September 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It is impossible to detached BY from AG...note that AG was part of the Temple lecture for nearly 25 years

That's actually not clear. Buerger wrote (speaking of the Lecture Nuttall had been revising for Young):

"It is not clear, in fact, what did become of the lecture. The apparent ignorance of the subject matter implied by Abraham Cannon's [1888] account—despite his having been a General Authority for six years—suggest it was not routinely presented in the temple. Similar ignorance among some missionaries [in 1897] and their president ... who also presumably had been through the temple prior to their missions supports this conclusion. Although exposes of the temple ceremonies published about this time do not include any reference to this lecture, "fundamentalist" authors have asserted without serious attempt at documentation that Brigham's lecture was an integral part of the temple ceremony until about 1902-1905. In support of this has been placed the testimony of one individual who in 1959 distinctly remembered hearing during his endowment in the temple in 1902 that "Adam was our God.""

[Johnnie Cake]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's actually not clear. Buerger wrote (speaking of the Lecture Nuttall had been revising for Young):

"It is not clear, in fact, what did become of the lecture. The apparent ignorance of the subject matter implied by Abraham Cannon's [1888] account—despite his having been a General Authority for six years—suggest it was not routinely presented in the temple. Similar ignorance among some missionaries [in 1897] and their president ... who also presumably had been through the temple prior to their missions supports this conclusion. Although exposes of the temple ceremonies published about this time do not include any reference to this lecture, "fundamentalist" authors have asserted without serious attempt at documentation that Brigham's lecture was an integral part of the temple ceremony until about 1902-1905. In support of this has been placed the testimony of one individual who in 1959 distinctly remembered hearing during his endowment in the temple in 1902 that "Adam was our God.""

Clark, I think your assertion is bumping up against a mountain of counter supportive evidence for the existence of BY's AG doctrine...even FAIR accepts this reality

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's actually not clear. Buerger wrote (speaking of the Lecture Nuttall had been revising for Young):

"It is not clear, in fact, what did become of the lecture. The apparent ignorance of the subject matter implied by Abraham Cannon's [1888] account—despite his having been a General Authority for six years—suggest it was not routinely presented in the temple. Similar ignorance among some missionaries [in 1897] and their president ... who also presumably had been through the temple prior to their missions supports this conclusion. Although exposes of the temple ceremonies published about this time do not include any reference to this lecture, "fundamentalist" authors have asserted without serious attempt at documentation that Brigham's lecture was an integral part of the temple ceremony until about 1902-1905. In support of this has been placed the testimony of one individual who in 1959 distinctly remembered hearing during his endowment in the temple in 1902 that "Adam was our God.""

Thank you Fairmormon. 

We must also recognize which temples actually operated at this time and their inconsistencies and relative distances.
St. George in 1877, Logan in 1884, Manti in 1888, and Salt Lake in 1893.  All other temples were well after the end of Adam-God teachings.
There was a lack of consistency in ordinances between these temples at that time.  Apostle Richards in the 1920s was commissioned to make these things consistent temple to temple (and he received much push back from temple presidents, particularly the St. George temple president).
There is a possibility that it was limited to the St. George Temple, but that was far and away the most active temple during the time period.

The lecture was introduced in the St. George temple in 1877, the same year Brigham died.  Even using the fundamentalist estimates it was gone by 1905.
That's 28 years. 
I wonder if there are additional journal entries corroborating the lecture from that area and time period.
 

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Clark, I think your assertion is bumping up against a mountain of counter supportive evidence for the existence of BY's AG doctrine...even FAIR accepts this reality

Not sure what you're referring to with that comment. I think there's abundant evidence that BY and others taught Adam God. Indeed I've been arguing that in nearly every comment in this thread. What's less clear are the origins for each part of that doctrine. While I'm not fully convinced by all his arguments, Matt Brown's paper on the subject strongly suggests elements originated in Nauvoo. I've mentioned the Nauvoo Expositor before which may suggest even parts of the controversial aspects originated in Nauvoo. William Law there criticized "false and damnable doctrines into the Church, such as a plurality of Gods above the God of this universe, and his liability to fall with all his creations; the plurality of wives, for time and eternity, the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life, against all crimes except that of sheding innocent blood..."

My comment you are replying to is purely about whether the Lecture at the Veil was, as you claimed, "part of the Temple lecture for nearly 25 years." That's simply not true and is separate from whether the theory was taught elsewhere. Buerger's "The Adam-God Doctrine" is a bit dated I'll admit. (1982) His revision of his papers in The Mysteries of Godliness says the same thing though (113) Devery Anderson's The Development of LDS Temple Worship just quotes Buerger on these points (although he summarizes it incorrectly somewhat regarding how long it was part of the temple ceremony - Buerger was critical on that point) . 

Edited September 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

"For when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust but returned to the spirit world, from whence they came."
Brigham Young - L. John Nuttall diary.

As taught to members for decades in the temple.

Which Adam and Eve?

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Begotten

BEGOT', BEGOT'TEN, participle passive of get. Procreated; generated."

"Adopted

ADOPT'ED, participle passive Taken as one's own; received as son and heir; selected for use."

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Adopted

Can CV show any usages by BY of the term "begotten" where it is used to mean "adopted"?

 

Inasmuch as he read from the latter-day scripture, yes: Spiritually begotten (Mosiah 5:7); which is formalized as adoption (D&C 84:34) under the Abrahamic covenant (Abraham 2: 9-11).

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

While I'm somewhat sympathetic to this charge, it also assumes they viewed their sermons the way we do now. Things were first off a lot looser in that era with far more speculation and disagreement among figures. It also ignores the fact that they didn't take the Journal of Discourses seriously. It was primarily a way for Watt to make some money since he wasn't really earning enough at the Deseret News. Letting him do the JD was basically a favor to him and they weren't even't published in the US. Only England initially. So reading back into the transcriptions a concern with getting things right is really acontextual. You could say they should have done that, but that assumes they understood how they'd become used. It seems clear they didn't think people would be referring to them in the way they developed. 

A must read paper on all this is Gerrit Drikmaat & LaJean Purcell Carruth's "The Prophets Have Spoken, but What Did They Say?"  They did an interview on LDS Perspectives where they get into the issue of how the Journal of Discourses was initially viewed and why there wasn't much concern for accuracy.

 Heber C. Kimball got rather annoyed at revisions to his sermons. Noting the presence of Watt and John V. Long there to record a sermon he told them "do not stick in your own stuff put in words said" (according to Long's transcript). One antagonistic reporter during the Utah War suggested Brigham liked his sermons being revised so he could say things and not be held to account for what he said. While there's some early evidence that people were aware of changes and approving them Drikmaat says that this may not have been consistent. There are examples of things published Brigham Young didn't approve. Quoting their paper.

 

I have been very critical of Caurrth's article on this board for not acknowledging the implication that the speeches were published in the Church organ.  The Deseret News was edited by apostles.   As I have said, the speeches were regularly read to Brigham Young before publication.  Wilford Woodruff writes about that.  Apparently President Young took seriously the dissemination of the speeches of the brethren. 

You say, "there are examples of things published Brigham Young didn't approve."  Well, who published these "things?"  The Church!.   Apostles were editors.   Being an editor was a hard job and these speeches took lots of space.  Wilford Woodruff turned down the calling of editor when Brigham Young called him to it. 

You say, there "wasn't much concern for accuracy."  That's absurd.  I've read every line of Wilford Woodruff, Nutall's and Clayton's available journals.  I get bored with every time they say -- "spent the day reading sermons to President Young for publication."  I'm amazed today at the effort that went into these speeches -- the space dedicated to them in a frontier newspaper and the number of people involved to get the speeches consistent with church views.  From the days of Joseph Smith, it was a major church mission to have a church newspaper that published the church's views.

Carruth just doesn't seem to understand the principle of ratification.   It doesn't really matter what was actually said over the pulpit, and that Watt transformed uneducated speakers into professorial commentators.  What matters is that the speeches were published in a church organ.

Thus, as I have asserted in the past, the best measure of the church's position on scriptural stories and doctrine is what is found in manuals currently published and on-line.  I have taken significant exception to some folks here - influential Mormon intellectuals -- continually citing Margaret Barker for the positions about the temple that are contrary to current LDS manuals.   What the church puts out as official instructional guides absolutely and unequivocally trumps everything that went before.   At least as to what is Church policy and doctrine.  

Having said that, I take no position as to whether the current church manuals are right or wrong and whether Margaret Barker is right or wrong.  What is "right" is known by God.  My personal views are irrelevant.  But I can recognize what is stated in official church organs.  One cannot assume away what Brigham Young said about Adam with the argument that Watt got it wrong somewhere else and thus he must have got it wrong here.  Once it got published in the Deseret News, it was the Church doing the speaking as much as it was President Young.

 

What is more valuable to you?   The shorthand notes of a sermon Joseph Smith gave in Nauvoo, or his published discourse in the Times and Seasons?

Edited September 7, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Johnnie Cake]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what you're referring to with that comment. I think there's abundant evidence that BY and others taught Adam God. Indeed I've been arguing that in nearly every comment in this thread. What's less clear are the origins for each part of that doctrine. While I'm not fully convinced by all his arguments, Matt Brown's paper on the subject strongly suggests elements originated in Nauvoo. I've mentioned the Nauvoo Expositor before which may suggest even parts of the controversial aspects originated in Nauvoo. William Law there criticized "false and damnable doctrines into the Church, such as a plurality of Gods above the God of this universe, and his liability to fall with all his creations; the plurality of wives, for time and eternity, the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life, against all crimes except that of sheding innocent blood..."

My comment you are replying to is purely about whether the Lecture at the Veil was, as you claimed, "part of the Temple lecture for nearly 25 years." That's simply not true and is separate from whether the theory was taught elsewhere. Buerger's "The Adam-God Doctrine" is a bit dated I'll admit. (1982) His revision of his papers in The Mysteries of Godliness says the same thing though (113) Devery Anderson's The Development of LDS Temple Worship just quotes Buerger on these points (although he summarizes it incorrectly somewhat regarding how long it was part of the temple ceremony - Buerger was critical on that point) . 

Well because of the nature of this particular subject...its is hard to nail down an exact timeline....but the lecture was allegedly part of the temple lecture from 1877 through to the date it was removed in 1905

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Well because of the nature of this particular subject...its is hard to nail down an exact timeline....but the lecture was allegedly part of the temple lecture from 1877 through to the date it was removed in 1905

Right. But the Buerger quote gets at why that is problematic. This was a fundamentalist claim resting on a late memory from the 1950's and no positive documentary evidence.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I have been very critical of Caurrth's article on this board for not acknowledging the implication that the speeches were published in the Church organ.  The Deseret News was edited by apostles.   As I have said, the speeches were regularly read to Brigham Young before publication.  Wilford Woodruff writes about that.  Apparently President Young took seriously the dissemination of the speeches of the brethren. You say, "there are examples of things published Brigham Young didn't approve."  Well, who published these "things?"  The Church!.   Apostles were editors.   Being an editor was a hard job and these speeches took lots of space.  Wilford Woodruff turned down the calling of editor when Brigham Young called him to it. 

Note I was referring to what the article argues. They provide arguments for why your claim is contestable. Not being an expert in this I can't debate the nuances of 19th century transcripts in the Deseret News. However the authors appears to be very familiar with many of the details. I found several of their arguments quite compelling although I'm more than willing to entertain counter-arguments.  You're argument appears to be that Nuttall went over sermons regularly with Brigham Young. So why the examples of contested publications? Why the comment by Kimball suggesting he didn't like how Hall transcribed?

Your argument basically reduces to that since Brigham Young approved, that's all that matters, without engaging with how carefully he examined them or whether he disputed them. In terms of ultimate responsibility, I fully agree. Brigham Young is ultimately responsible. I'm not sure that entails him being careful. In some cases it seems very likely he wanted one thing said and an other thing written for deniability such during the Utah War.

Quote

Thus, as I have asserted in the past, the best measure of the church's position on scriptural stories and doctrine is what is found in manuals currently published and on-line.  I have taken significant exception to some folks here - influential Mormon intellectuals -- continually citing Margaret Barker for the positions about the temple that are contrary to current LDS manuals.   What the church puts out as official instructional guides absolutely and unequivocally trumps everything that went before.   At least as to what is Church policy and doctrine.

Which is actually a fantastic analogy. Since of course over the last 20 years most of the manuals have been horrid with tons of mistakes and questionable teachings. Again, if your point is ultimate responsibility I fully agree with you. If your point is normative presentation due to the manuals being official I fully agree. If your point is the manuals fairly represent the thought of the figures at the top of the Church then I have far more difficulty accepting your position. 

Put an other way, what is at issue? What's "official" or what is believed? They aren't the same question.

Quote

What is more valuable to you?   The shorthand notes of a sermon Joseph Smith gave in Nauvoo, or his published discourse in the Times and Seasons?

The notes are far more informative for what I'm interested in. It would really depend upon what questions one is focused on. I'll confess that most of the time I don't care what the average member thinks or most of the normative issues. I'm much more interested in what the speakers think and more significantly why they think it. However I fully acknowledge many people are far more interested in the society wide issues and normative ones.

Edited September 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The first quote states that the Father (Adam) created mortal bodies by partaking of mortal elements.
The second quote states that as future Gods we will become Adams (and Eves) and do the same.

How exactly does this describe two kinds of Adams?  One is God doing it for our earth.  The other is us as Gods doing it for the next earth when we reach that level.
One kind of Adam.

You inserted the Adam in the first statement. When Brigham Young referred to our Father he had to be talking about our Father in Heaven, not the earthly Adam who, along with the earthly Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge because Brigham in November of 1864 said:

"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 Arch−angel. And the Lord
administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him; I have set thee to be at the head − a multitude of nations
shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever." 
'So, in like manner, every faithful son of God, becomes, as it were, Adam to the race that springs from his 
loins, when they are embraced in the covenants' JD 10:355, Brigham Young, November 6, 1864

There Brigham himself is quoting a canonized scripture that states unequivocally that Adam, the Ancient of Days died. Now I am not one to believe that Brigham was so stupid that he did not realize the import of that scripture if he believed that the Adam that partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and became mortal but somehow did not die but came back and sired Jesus the Christ. Yet, twelve years after the famous sermon that started it all, Brigham is affirming that the earthly Adam did indeed die.

In that case, belief by Brigham that Heavenly Father as an Adam can only make sense in the Temple Endowment that Brigham initiated. Brigham knew that Adam died.

The only way that the excerpts I cited make any sense is if Brigham thought of Our heavenly Father, the Heavenly Father who selected Jesus as the Christ in the pre-existence as an Adam. The second scripture is evidence for that, as Brigham says that of the men on this earth that that gain exaltation will do the very same thing, They will go to earth as an Adam with a wife that is an Eve and will partake of the coarse materials of the earth until they can beget physical tabernacles for their spirit children. Those children would be immortal. And God the Father being called Adam would only make sense when Brigham said in a sermon "Mother  Eve was the daughter of Adam."  Willford Woodruff Journal, August 31, 1873: At Paris, Idaho

Now, I let's do a thought experiment. Let's go back in time to the very first world that God the Father created. The very first one. Where did the Adam and Eve that lived in that Garden of Eden and transgressed and became mortal come from? There would have been no other worlds for an Adam and Eve to come from. Did heavenly Father literally create them from the dust of the earth, (as he is fully capable of doing) or did He and His Eve beget them? That is a question that I believe started Brigham on this whole course.

Glenn