Brigham Young?

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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.

Bob, I have excerpted a couple of things from The Prophets Have Spoken, But What Do They Say? which shows that the review of a lot of stuff prior to publication was sporadic. Not everything was vetted. I believe that my position is pretty tenable.

Young’s supervision prior to publication.
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 Office 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.22 Ostensibly, every part of the “History” was
reviewed and approved before it was published, but this entry demon-
strates the contrary.
The Prophets Have Spoken, But What Do They Say? Gerrit Dirkmaat and 
LaJean Purcell Carruth

While that announcement suggested to the readers that each sermon
went through a careful vetting process before publication, evidence sug-
gests that such hands-on editorial control was very much the exception.
Despite the starkness of these two examples of prophetic and apostolic
editorial intervention prior to publication, both involved the ongoing
difficulty between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt over the matter of
correct doctrine. It is likely that such strict editorial control was not
normally the rule, and certainly this collaborative editing of a spoken
sermon by one of the Quorum of the Twelve has no other known equiv-
alent. In fact, the April 4 discussion with Pratt suggests that in general
sermons were not so carefully vetted. Brigham Young even declared
to the group, “I never look at my sermons,” apparently indicating that
he did not study the published versions of his sermons either for con-
sistency or error, and certainly not for editorial flourishes potentially
added by Watt.  Young, Office Journal, Minutes, April 4, 1860, as 
published in Collier, Office Journal of President Brigham Young, 423.
The Prophets Have Spoken, But What Do They Say? Gerrit Dirkmaat and 
LaJean Purcell Carruth

March 11, 1856: I spent a part of the day in the Committee Room and met with
the Regency in the evening. The time was occupied till 10 o'clock writing
lessons upon the blackboard. Then the subject was brought up concerning Adam
being made of the dust of the earth and Elder Orson Pratt pursued a course of
stubbornness and unbelief in what President Young said. That will destroy him
if he does not repent and turn from his evil way, for when any man crosses the
track of a leader in Israel and tries to lead the prophet, he is no
longer led by him but is in danger of falling. Willford Woodruff Journal

From the above quotes some conclusions could possibly be drawn. It is evident that Brigham Young did review some of the sermons that were to be published. Georhe D. Watt began doing his recording in 1851. In 1853 he recived permission to publish the speecehes he had transcribed in the Journal of Discourses in England. There were a bevy of speeches prior to that date that were vetted to see if they were okay to send to England. But it is also evident that things were published that were not vetted. From what he is recorded as saying in his office journal minutes that he never looked at his sermons opens up the very real possibility that Brigham vetted mostly if not exclusively speeches by others but was satisfied that his own did not need to be reviewed.

The excerpt from Willford Woodruff's diary is illustrative of the atmosphere and attitudes that just may have been in play in the Quorum mostly, the rest of the General Authorities, and maybe most of the membership. One just did not question Brigham Young.

 

Edited  to add, I posted this before I saw Clark Goble's posts.

Glenn

Edited September 8, 2017 by Glenn101
addition

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

While the problems of Watt are well known, I don't think that can account for everything. Further the relative consistency of the doctrine not only by Brigham but others suggests a fair degree of clarity. More significantly I think the nature of the heated debate between Orson Pratt and his supporters and Brigham Young and his supporters helps clarify issues. (For those interested, while it's hardly exhaustive, Conflict in the Quorum, gets at most of these issues)

There are of course complexities to all this. In particular William Law's statement in the Nauvoo Expositor about the liability of God falling with his creation is significant in pushing elements back to Nauvoo. 

Clark, I am not arguing that Brigham Young never taught some sort of Adam-God Doctrine. I am not that irrational or stupid. My main contention is that the Adam-God Doctrine as presented on Fair i.e.

"Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father

Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. Since this teaching runs counter to the story told in Genesis and commonly accepted by Christians, critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet. Also, because modern Latter-day Saints do not believe Brigham's "Adam-God" teachings, critics accuse Mormons of either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of prophets they find uncomfortable or unsupportable."

is not what Brigham Young believed and was trying to teach. After searching through the Journal of Discourses to try to understand what Brigham was trying to say and what he believed I think that I have the glimmering of an idea. That statement "Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father" is untenable because Brigham also averred in 1864 that Adam did indeed die. That is problematic for any belief that earthly Adam also was the being that begat Jesus in the flesh as that Adam was a disembodied spirit until the resurrection. I do not think that Brigham Young was irrational or stupid and had a pretty good grasp of the scriptures, including Section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

I do agree that the ideas probably started in Nauvoo, with Joseph Smith. Willford Woodruff said he was told by Brigham Young that Joseph taught that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ. But Joseph Smith was also the conduit by which we received Section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

There are a lot of statements in journals etc. that are problematic for any theory about what Brigham taught to be completely coherent.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

Did you take a look at the Satanic changes to the 116 pages?  Can I get a witness?

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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. 

That is the anti-Mormon and apostate position, sure.  Make Brigham infallible and everyone else deficient.  Once the straw man is set up, the rest falls into place.

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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. 

I don't need to pray to know that Brigham taught Adam-God.  It is a fact that he did.  You are the only person who doesn't believe that he taught it.  Does that mean that Samuel the Lamanite has a devil inside him?  No, it only means that he is incredibly ignorant.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

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.

2  Pt 1:20-21 does not address "those writing the Bible," most of whom were not prophets.  It deals instead with the words of the prophets being inspired by God, and which must be interpreted by inspiration as well.  It makes no statement about the inerrancy of Scripture at all, which is false doctrine in any case.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Clark, I am not arguing that Brigham Young never taught some sort of Adam-God Doctrine. I am not that irrational or stupid. My main contention is that the Adam-God Doctrine as presented on Fair i.e.

"Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father

Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. Since this teaching runs counter to the story told in Genesis and commonly accepted by Christians, critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet. Also, because modern Latter-day Saints do not believe Brigham's "Adam-God" teachings, critics accuse Mormons of either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of prophets they find uncomfortable or unsupportable."

is not what Brigham Young believed and was trying to teach. After searching through the Journal of Discourses to try to understand what Brigham was trying to say and what he believed I think that I have the glimmering of an idea. That statement "Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father" is untenable because Brigham also averred in 1864 that Adam did indeed die. That is problematic for any belief that earthly Adam also was the being that begat Jesus in the flesh as that Adam was a disembodied spirit until the resurrection. I do not think that Brigham Young was irrational or stupid and had a pretty good grasp of the scriptures, including Section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

I'm pretty sympathetic to the two Adam theory. Or at least elements of it. Although I don't think it really explains Brigham's beliefs. My personal feeling is the simplest explanation is simply he was inconsistent and believed different things at different times. Including about the origins of particular claims. More or less if Adam is a title, then a lot of the problems go away and it's easy to see how Brigham could get details wrong.

BTW - Adam dying isn't a contradiction since his theory is celestial beings can fall, can die, and can resurrect themselves. There's a lot muddled in the theory but it's not quite as crazy as it's made out to be. It's still wrong I think but in more subtle ways related to titles, names and roles. IMO. 

Interestingly it's also not unique to Mormonism. There's actually a surprising bit of Adam as God in the 1st century. Further a lot of the confusion around Michael is also a bit more complicated. Of course non-Mormons often take the passages referring to Ancient of Days to mean God. Once Joseph takes Daniel 7 to refer to Adam, a lot of the confusion was inevitable. That said I also think the Merkabah tradition, especially Metatron as the Lesser YHWH, explains why it's not quite as big an issue as some portray. Adam is made in the image of God. But in the second temple period you have Moses or Enoch receiving the image of God and often seen as higher than Adam or even a second Adam. The poet Ezekiel (not that Ezekiel) during that period has a story of Moses becoming God and King that is very similar to the later Metatron/Enoch stuff. While most of this is Samaritan (who maintained more Canaanite influence and of course didn't have the evolution during the exile) it does in turn go back to the Great Angel stuff from before the exile I've discussed in a few threads of late. Meeks in "Moses as God and King" talks about this as Moses being a second Adam who reclaims the glory Adam once had. That in turn is likely context for Paul's use of second Adam for Christ. I should note that most of this shows heavy signs of hellenistic influence too though. Unsurprisingly Philo buys into it and appears to adopt a lot of the Metatron deification to Moses.

The common thread is that there are rituals tied to all this (see that link to the poet Ezekiel discussion) that most Mormons would see as the endowment.

Of course within mystic judaism you famously have the notion of Adam Kadamon or the heavenly Adam. While particularly Kabbalistic influences on Nauvoo are understandably controversial (I'm very skeptical myself) Infamously Lance Owens wrote a horrible article "Joseph Smith and Kaballah" back in the mid-90s. While Owens stuff was very uncompelling, more indirect influence via theurgical platonism (Iamblichus, Proclus, secondary material on Renaissance figures like Ficino or Aggrippa) makes things a bit more interesting. Especially via masonry. Most of the speculative Masonic stuff is post-Nauvoo so people have to be careful with parallels. For instance most of Pike's books are irrelevant. That said there were books available to the early Mormons that discuss a lot of this such as John Allen's "Modern Judaism" (1830) or Edward Burton's "An Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age" (1829) particularly around page 304-310 which gets at matter being eternal, Adam Kadamon, etc. 

Again, far more speculation than hard evidence so it's important to be skeptical both of how much came out of Nauvoo and where the ideas there developed.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm pretty sympathetic to the two Adam theory. Or at least elements of it. Although I don't think it really explains Brigham's beliefs. My personal feeling is the simplest explanation is simply he was inconsistent and believed different things at different times. Including about the origins of particular claims. More or less if Adam is a title, then a lot of the problems go away and it's easy to see how Brigham could get details wrong.

BTW - Adam dying isn't a contradiction since his theory is celestial beings can fall, can die, and can resurrect themselves. There's a lot muddled in the theory but it's not quite as crazy as it's made out to be. It's still wrong I think but in more subtle ways related to titles, names and roles. IMO. 

Clark, I do believe that all of the arguments that you can bring to bear from the scriptures are also those that Brigham Young would be aware of also. My personal feeling is that it was not Brigham Young that was inconsistent, but rather that most of the inconsistencies came mostly through the filters of those who heard Brigham and how they understood, recorded, and reported his words. Take for example the JOD account of the April 9 1852 speech by Brigham Young and the account of it from Willford Woodruff's journal have some major differences. I do not know which of the two is the more accurate. Woodruff's account has things that the JOD did not and the JOD account inserted the word Adam in the "Our Father" phrase that Woodruff recorded. Portions of Woodruff's version does find support in a later speech recorded in the JOD though.

Do you have a reference showing that Brigham believed that a celestial being could die and resurrect himself? I have not found anything which explicitly states such. That is an illogical thought when applied the the Adam-God story because the scriptures and Brigham's own words reveal that Adam was in a mortal, fallen state subject to sin and dependent upon the resurrection and redemption before he could be resurrected. The report by John Nuttall in his diary also are problematic for that theory as it says "when Adam and Eve got through with their Work on this earth. they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came."

Elden Watson made an interesting observation also in his paper on the Adam-God theory. He stated that when the Bible and Book of Moses reports that Adam called his wife Eve because she was the mother of all living, those reports had to be talking about Heavenly Mother as Mother Eve because at that point in time the earthly Eve in the Garden of Eden had yet to bear a child. At that time the veil was drawn over Adam and Eve's minds and they had no concept of birth, death, or how babies are made, so the idea to me has some merit.

Simply put, I believe that Brigham Young was teaching that Our Heavenly Father was an Adam, as in a title. There is a lot of support for such an idea in his discourses. He did not believe that Adam and Eve were made out of the dust of the earth except as is explained in Moses 6:59. Of course what that implies is certainly not orthodox Christianity either. But if the Garden of Eden creation of Adam and Eve is only figurative, there needs to be some other way that they came to be.

Of course I can prove none of this, else we would not still be having these conversations. I am comfortable with the way I have "spun" it though.

Thanks for your input and insights.

Glenn

 

 

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

2  Pt 1:20-21 does not address "those writing the Bible," most of whom were not prophets.  It deals instead with the words of the prophets being inspired by God, and which must be interpreted by inspiration as well.  It makes no statement about the inerrancy of Scripture at all, which is false doctrine in any case.

I am fully committed to a Bible God both inspired and protects. Please consider https://www.gospelway.com/bible/bible_inspiration.php

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

I am fully committed to a Bible God both inspired and protects. Please consider https://www.gospelway.com/bible/bible_inspiration.php

For some reason, I'm reminded of this from Catholic scholar Terry Eagleton:
 

Quote

The phrase "sacred text" is self-contradictory. Since writing is meaning that can be handled by anybody, any time, it is always profane and promiscuous. Meaning that has been written down is bound to be unhygienic. Words that could only ever mean one thing would not be words. ... Roughness is not a defect of human existence, but what makes it work.

I've never quite understood the idea that scripture is "God-breathed" and thus pristine and error-free. Even if that were true (and it clearly isn't), as Eagleton notes, once human hands and minds get on a text, all bets are off because every individual is going to read it differently. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is the anti-Mormon and apostate position, sure.  Make Brigham infallible and everyone else deficient.  Once the straw man is set up, the rest falls into place.

Young was not infallible, but he was a prophet.  Would you listen to a meteorologist that couldn't tell the difference between a Cat 5 Hurricane and a tropical storm? 

Just because Young wasn't perfect doesn't mean he couldn't tell the difference between the spirit and his own human thoughts.  

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Did you take a look at the Satanic changes to the 116 pages?  Can I get a witness?

Satan inspired someone to make changes, see D&C 10 

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't need to pray to know that Brigham taught Adam-God.  It is a fact that he did.  You are the only person who doesn't believe that he taught it.  Does that mean that Samuel the Lamanite has a devil inside him?  No, it only means that he is incredibly ignorant.

  President Wilford Woodruff taught “There are two powers on the earth and in the midst of the inhabitants of the earth" 

Edited September 8, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Young was not infallible, but he was a prophet.  Would you listen to a meteorologist that couldn't tell the difference between a Cat 5 Hurricane and a tropical storm? 

I wouldn't. But claiming that a meteorologist can tell the difference simply because he's a meteorologist doesn't inspire much confidence. I think it would be great to view the meteorologist's track record. In the case of BY, there is plenty of evidence that convinces me he was more wrong than right on many issues.

Just because Young wasn't perfect doesn't mean he couldn't tell the difference between the spirit and his own human thoughts.  

You're making assumptions that he could tell the difference by virtue of his title as if the title proves something.

Satan inspired someone to make changes, see D&C 10 

 Satan inspired someone to make changes to the 116 pages.   President Wilford Woodruff taught “There are two powers on the earth and in the midst of the inhabitants of the earth" 

I issued a CFR on this yesterday. Could you please answer and provide some kind of evidence or statement by a church leader that suggests Satan changed the 116 pages.

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I issued a CFR on this yesterday. Could you please answer and provide some kind of evidence or statement by a church leader that suggests Satan changed the 116 pages.

Satan inspired men to make changes. Same thing "10 And, behold, Satan hath put it into their hearts to alter the words which you have caused to be written, or which you have translated, which have gone out of your hands. 11 And behold, I say unto you, that because they have altered the words, they read contrary from that which you translated and caused to be written;". It was Satan's plan "the devil has sought to lay a cunning plan, that he may destroy this work"

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Clark, I do believe that all of the arguments that you can bring to bear from the scriptures are also those that Brigham Young would be aware of also.

Well as I suggested the more interesting parallels are those outside the scriptures. 

Quote

Do you have a reference showing that Brigham believed that a celestial being could die and resurrect himself? I have not found anything which explicitly states such.

Typically people appeal to the Oct 8, 1854 discourse which was unpublished. I've no idea if this is a text Hall modified. I know there's a version in the John Pulsipher papers so we have multiple accounts of that sermon I believe.

"The inquiry will arise, among those who are strenuous, and tenacious for the account given by Mosses, as to Adam. "Did not Adam die?" Yes, he died. "Does not the Bible say he died?" I do not know nor care, but I think it would be hard, I think, to find where he died; or where Moses died, (Reporters note. Gen. 5, chap., 5 v. And all the days that Adam lived were 930 years: and he died. Deut. 24, Chap., 5 v. Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he / buried him in a Valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor; but no man knoweth / or his sepulcher to this day). (p. 20) though I have no doubt Moses died, and Adam also; ________________________ _________________ have? "

The other reference is Woodruff's journal for May 6, 1855 regarding a debate between Young and Pratt. " O. Pratt asks will Adam or any God continue to make worlds, people them, taste of death to redeem them---Answer: I have no doubt but it is his privilege but whether He will do it is a question in my mind. " The Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the Twelve in Historian's upper room; Great Salt Lake City; April 5. 1860  which were Pratt, Hyde and Snow discussing the ideas also indicate Adam would die numerous times in Brigham's view. The Woodruff Journal for Jan 27, 1860 also has Brigham saying, "Michael was a resurrected Being and he left Eloheim and came to this earth & with an immortal body, & continued so till he partook of earthly food and begot children who were mortal (keep this to yourselves) then they died." 

The idea that he was translated rather than died then gets seen as a later evolution of Brigham's thought.

The typical view is that in the garden Adam no longer had a celestial body and thus wasn't a celestial being. 

Quote

Simply put, I believe that Brigham Young was teaching that Our Heavenly Father was an Adam, as in a title. There is a lot of support for such an idea in his discourses. He did not believe that Adam and Eve were made out of the dust of the earth except as is explained in Moses 6:59. Of course what that implies is certainly not orthodox Christianity either. But if the Garden of Eden creation of Adam and Eve is only figurative, there needs to be some other way that they came to be.

I certainly agree that was what he taught at some times. I also think confusion over this led to aspects of the Adam/God theory. However while I disagree with elements of what Bob Crockett is saying, I also think he's completely right that we can't merely quibble about Brigham's sermons but look at how he responded to others teaching the doctrine or (in the case of Orson Pratt) others teaching against the doctrine. In particular I think Heber C. Kimball becomes quite significant there. Particularly his theory of multiple probations. 

 

[Bob Crockett]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

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.

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.

10

If you are more interested in what the speaker actually said, I grant you that the BY Studies article makes the valid point.

If you are more interested in what the institution's policies and doctrines are, then the article doesn't.   Nephi points out that he makes mistakes.  But that is no justification for throwing out the entire Book of Mormon as a result.  Yes, there are going to be errors by the time the Deseret News sermons are published.  But that is no reason to then completely jettison the published sermons and try and reconstruct things from shorthand notes to ascertain Church policy.  Like I have said, that is absurd.  I guess I'm being lawyerly, too much so, but it is much more significant to ascertain an institution's position on things by examining the published statements in an official organ after there has been vetting -- and there was plenty of vetting here, much more than one would ever see in a frontier publication.  The Church took it very seriously to distribute the messages of the Brethren to the scattered church.

Examples here given that Brigham Young was disturbed by the publication of things where he wanted edits made first rather proves my point, not yours.  The publication of the sermons was a means of institutional quality control.  If errors were observed, they'd be commented upon and then we can reach conclusions.  

Thus, one cannot discount all the many statements Brigham Young made about Adam and God simply by throwing out all the Deseret News published sermons because there are a few noted errors.  I think it is apologetic fantasy to make that argument.  

It was never Church policy that Adam was our God and the only one with whom we had to do, but it was Church policy that Brigham Young actually meant to communicate that thought.   But I don't care.  The President of the Church does not run the Church.  The Quorum of the Twelve does.  The First Presidency executes the Quorum's will. 

Edited September 8, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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

They're the SAME person.  That's the whole point of "Adam-God".
If they were different people, one Heavenly Father, one Adam the first man on earth, then this doctrine would never have caused any issues.  There would have been nothing for President Kimball to disavow.

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

If you are more interested in what the speaker actually said, I grant you that the BY Studies article makes the valid point.

If you are more interested in what the institution's policies and doctrines are, then the article doesn't.

If we're interested in what people thought though, then we have to balance things. As I said, for people who are more interested in normative issues you make a great point. But that's just not what all people are typically concerned with.

Quote

Examples here given that Brigham Young was disturbed by the publication of things where he wanted edits made first rather proves my point, not yours.  The publication of the sermons was a means of institutional quality control.  If errors were observed, they'd be commented upon and then we can reach conclusions.  

This doesn't seem to follow and the way you put it seems unfalsifiable. If he doesn't say anything it's evidence he approved it. If he did say anything it's proof he was rejecting and approving. So let me turn the question around. What would be evidence for you that he was letting things through without enough concern? 

Quote

Thus, one cannot discount all the many statements Brigham Young made about Adam and God simply by throwing out all the Deseret News published sermons because there are a few noted errors.  I think it is apologetic fantasy to make that argument.  

Note that I'm not arguing that. I think those that are arguing something similar (not me) are actually making a much more subtle point that certain elements of Adam/God theory only appear in a few places. Those elements may actually be artifacts of transcription process. I don't agree (and posted something along those lines earlier today)

Quote

It was never Church policy that Adam was our God and the only one with whom we had to do, but it was Church policy that Brigham Young actually meant to communicate that thought.   But I don't care.  The President of the Church does not run the Church.  The Quorum of the Twelve does.  The First Presidency executes the Quorum's will. 

Umm. What?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Young was not infallible, but he was a prophet.  Would you listen to a meteorologist that couldn't tell the difference between a Cat 5 Hurricane and a tropical storm? 

Just because Young wasn't perfect doesn't mean he couldn't tell the difference between the spirit and his own human thoughts.  

You and I are not perfect either.  Yet we fundamentally disagree on this matter.  Do you think that one should be a professional, trained meteorologist to speak authoritatively about hurricanes?   You speak as though you have authority in LDS history and theology, and you think that anyone at all can pass judgement on Brigham's Adam-God theory, without knowing anything about LDS history -- such as the fact that Orson Pratt disagreed with Brigham on that very issue, something you are afraid to acknowledge.  Instead, you claim that Satan made changes  in the Journal of Discourses.  You have made your ignorance the measure of reality.  Smooth move, Sam.

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Satan inspired someone to make changes, see D&C 10 

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

Yet we have seen no such changes, and the 116 pages were never recovered, a fact which you never acknowledge.  Another fact which you fail to acknowledge is that Satan can only do what God allows him to do:

D&C 10:14 "Verily, I say unto you, that I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing."

I  have mentioned God's sovereignty in this matter before, and you have refused to accept this.  Why are you afraid to acknowledge that you are fundamentally wrong?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I am fully committed to a Bible God both inspired and protects. Please consider https://www.gospelway.com/bible/bible_inspiration.php

That fundamentalist position is basically illogical and tendentious in the extreme, based on every fallacy one can possibly imagine.

Prophets are inspired, and one should certainly listen to them and heed their words.  I recommend that you listen to the modern prophets who will be speaking to you at the Sept 30 - Oct 1, 2017, LDS General Conference.  In the course of time (sometimes thousands of years), one hopes that prophetic words will be accurately transmitted and translated into various languages, and that the editors who write stories about them will be accurate.  In the case of Jesus, he left no personal writings, and the only accounts we have are translated into Greek in the Gospels -- which often differ on what he said and did.   The same applies to the prophet Jeremiah, who had two scribes who took dictation from him.  We have two separate versions of Jeremiah, one edited in Egypt by scribe Seraiah, the other edited in Babylon by scribe Baruch.  One we have in the LXX Greek version, the other in Massortetic Hebrew.  Which is correct?

The late Professor James Barr on evangelical use of the Bible:   For them, the claims that the Bible

Quote

    is divinely inspired and infallible, do not mean that it must be taken literally, and are not so interpreted in the conservative evangelical literature; what they mean, and are constantly interpreted as meaning, is that the Bible contains no error of any kind –  not  only theological error, but error of any sort of historical, geographical  or scientific fact, is completely absent from the Bible.  Barr, Fundamentalism, 41-42.

 

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

They're the SAME person.  That's the whole point of "Adam-God".
If they were different people, one Heavenly Father, one Adam the first man on earth, then this doctrine would never have caused any issues.  There would have been nothing for President Kimball to disavow.

That is what you and some people believe. And that is why we are having this discussion. After looking at the available evidence, have a different opinion.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Typically people appeal to the Oct 8, 1854 discourse which was unpublished. I've no idea if this is a text Hall modified. I know there's a version in the John Pulsipher papers so we have multiple accounts of that sermon I believe.

"The inquiry will arise, among those who are strenuous, and tenacious for the account given by Mosses, as to Adam. "Did not Adam die?" Yes, he died. "Does not the Bible say he died?" I do not know nor care, but I think it would be hard, I think, to find where he died; or where Moses died, (Reporters note. Gen. 5, chap., 5 v. And all the days that Adam lived were 930 years: and he died. Deut. 24, Chap., 5 v. Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he / buried him in a Valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor; but no man knoweth / or his sepulcher to this day). (p. 20) though I have no doubt Moses died, and Adam also; ________________________ _________________ have? "

The other reference is Woodruff's journal for May 6, 1855 regarding a debate between Young and Pratt. " O. Pratt asks will Adam or any God continue to make worlds, people them, taste of death to redeem them---Answer: I have no doubt but it is his privilege but whether He will do it is a question in my mind. " The Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the Twelve in Historian's upper room; Great Salt Lake City; April 5. 1860  which were Pratt, Hyde and Snow discussing the ideas also indicate Adam would die numerous times in Brigham's view. The Woodruff Journal for Jan 27, 1860 also has Brigham saying, "Michael was a resurrected Being and he left Eloheim and came to this earth & with an immortal body, & continued so till he partook of earthly food and begot children who were mortal (keep this to yourselves) then they died." 

The idea that he was translated rather than died then gets seen as a later evolution of Brigham's thought.

The typical view is that in the garden Adam no longer had a celestial body and thus wasn't a celestial being. 

Thanks for the information. I have Woodruff's Journal, but not the other two. Unfortunately we have nothing that Brigham wrote himself about the subject. Fortunately our salvation or exaltation does not depend upon our mortal understanding of the subject.

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

That is what you and some people believe. And that is why we are having this discussion. After looking at the available evidence, have a different opinion.

Glenn

Apparently that's what Brigham believed.
For goodness sake, Orson Pratt was nearly disfellowshipped for disagreeing with him.

If it was as you describe, the orthodox view, then there would have been nothing for Orson Pratt to disagree with.

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That fundamentalist position is basically illogical and tendentious in the extreme, based on every fallacy one can possibly imagine.

Prophets are inspired, and one should certainly listen to them and heed their words.  I recommend that you listen to the modern prophets who will be speaking to you at the Sept 30 - Oct 1, 2017, LDS General Conference.  In the course of time (sometimes thousands of years), one hopes that prophetic words will be accurately transmitted and translated into various languages, and that the editors who write stories about them will be accurate.  In the case of Jesus, he left no personal writings, and the only accounts we have are translated into Greek in the Gospels -- which often differ on what he said and did.   The same applies to the prophet Jeremiah, who had two scribes who took dictation from him.  We have two separate versions of Jeremiah, one edited in Egypt by scribe Seraiah, the other edited in Babylon by scribe Baruch.  One we have in the LXX Greek version, the other in Massortetic Hebrew.  Which is correct?

The late Professor James Barr on evangelical use of the Bible:   For them, the claims that the Bible

 

And this statement comes from an individual that believes in being baptized for the dead among other oddities? Talk about illogical and tendentious... What Jesus did leave behind were those He personally taught/educated, inspired, and would save ---- except Judas Iscariot.

Edited September 9, 2017 by LittleNipper

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

And this statement comes from an individual that believes in being baptized for the dead among other oddities? Talk about illogical and tendentious... What Jesus did leave behind were those He personally taught/educated.

Are you trying for a derail?  Baptism for the dead is in the NT.  It requires a lot of manipulation of the text to change it to mean some esoterical "dead without Christ" meaning.  There is nothing in the text to preclude taking Paul literally.  Even some "traditional" Christians recognize that.
 

 

[CV75]

I think this thread, not that it isn’t productive academically, provides a good example of the essential role of scriptural canon upheld by common consent.

When a revelation is not both sufficiently articulated for whatever reason (lack of unanimity among the First Presidency and Twelve; human weakness in communication or understanding; other human fallibility; no widespread “need to know”; what have you) and upheld by the body of saints, it remains personal to the recipient, no matter how desirous he may be to share it. The people of Zion are of one heart and one mind, and the common scriptures represent their common faith, testimony and drive, not their personal revelations no matter how high their calling.

I think that principle provides a great check-and-balance for focusing on “the fundamental principles of our religion” as Joseph Smith expressed it, as any “appendage” must tie back to “the [common and united] testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven.” This particular appendage, no matter how lucidly it is explained and defended, seems to have challenges in bringing the mind to focus on that priority.

Perhaps that challenge is partly due to its presenting the link between where we are and where we are going more as a function of the power of the Father than as a function of the power of the Son, when the latter is our only Intermediary in Whom all our power rests, and in Whom the Father granted all power as far as we are concerned. I think ultimately, the "only God with whom WE have to do" is the bigger union of perfected individuals (the "council" of Gods or the "Church of the Firstborn") that we are being sealed into.

Edited September 9, 2017 by CV75

[LittleNipper]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Are you trying for a derail?  Baptism for the dead is in the NT.  It requires a lot of manipulation of the text to change it to mean some esoterical "dead without Christ" meaning.  There is nothing in the text to preclude taking Paul literally.  Even some "traditional" Christians recognize that.
 

 

Obviously, it (baptism of the dead) isn't one of those "things" that was misinterpreted to your understanding. The real question is --- whom do you serve? Man and his religion or Jesus the Messiah --- the ONLY begotten Son of the Living GOD. Everything is tied together. Prophets are either true or they are false. It 's most obvious to me exactly which one Brigham Young was but you seem to make excuses for hIm while trying to undermine the inerrancy of the Bible. Yes, I do hold to Biblical inerrancy and only real prophets of GOD received and revealed the absolute truth by way of GOD's divine inspiration. False prophets make mistakes because they are applying their own wisdom.

As for baptism of the dead, yes it is mentioned. The question is WHY? And that is up to biblical interpretation with the Holy Spirit as one's guide. Please consider if you desire:http://www.preachersnotes.com/Edgar Dye/BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD.pdf 

Edited September 9, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

And this statement comes from an individual that believes in being baptized for the dead among other oddities? Talk about illogical and tendentious.

Are you speaking about me, or about Prof Barr, who was an evangelical and president of his campus Christian organization -- but who had little patience with the nonsensical claims of inerrancy.

You mock vicarious baptism for the dead in 1 Cor 15:29 (which follows a vicarious Jewish rite described in 2 Maccabees 12).  Yet Prof D. A. Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School said in 1998:

Quote

The most plausible interpretation is that some in Corinth were getting baptized vicariously for the dead.  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1998/august10/8t9063.html?start=1 .

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

.. What Jesus did leave behind were those He personally taught/educated, inspired, and would save ---- except Judas Iscariot.

If that is so, then why don't the Gospels agree on what Jesus did and said and when he did it?  Why is the Bible filled with thousands of inconsistencies and anachronisms?