Jump to content

Understanding Adam-God


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's not entirely true. Joseph is inconsistent in the usage sometimes applying Jehovah to Christ and sometimes to the Father. For instance he says it's Christ who appears as Jehovah to Moses. Likewise he explicitly calls Christ Jehovah in D&C 110. 

Yes, in D&C 110 Jesus had received the office of Jehovah.  These are priesthood offices we are talking about, not personal names.  By D&C 110 Jesus was a resurrected Christ, a Savior of a world who had laid down his life, and had power over death.

He was not that in OT times.

Brigham also referred to Michael Yahovah, which would directly connect to the statement in John "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." and the King Follett teachings.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, in D&C 110 Jesus had received the office of Jehovah.  These are priesthood offices we are talking about, not personal names.  By D&C 110 Jesus was a resurrected Christ, a Savior of a world who had laid down his life, and had power over death.

He was not that in OT times.

Brigham also referred to Michael Yahovah, which would directly connect to the statement in John "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." and the King Follett teachings.

Again that's not Joseph's use. That's my only point. You've created a model but that model can't account for how Joseph used the term including D&C 110. I think your model has trouble with Ether 3 since of course that's where Christ is described as Lord (YHWH) but then shows the body he will have. Also it just can't account for passages from Joseph's sermons like the following:

"Christ fulfiled all righteousness in becoming obedient to the the Law which himself had given to Moses on the mount and thereby magnified it and made it honorable instead of destroying it" (January 29, 1843)

"Law & prophets &c. Suffereth violence & the violent taketh it by force--heaven and earth shall pass away. &c says Christ. he was the rock &c.--gave the law 30 Ex. 30.31." (July 23, 1843)

"We will go back to Mount Scinai where Jesus gave the Law to Moses Exodus 30 chap 30 verse also the last chap 15 verse." (July 23, 1843)

"The Lord (Jehovah) hath spoken through Isaiah (xiii: 1), saying, "Behold my servant whom I uphold--mine elect in whom my soul delighteth;" evidently referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, chosen, or elected by the Father. " (HotC 4.256)

Now of course Joseph wasn't consistent in this use. So one can find other uses including in the texts 109-110 where sometimes the Father is Jehovah and sometimes Christ is.

Link to comment

I was introduced to Adam-God some 30+ years ago. I did not accept it, rather I set it aside.

But in trying to answer some of my life long questions it kept coming up.

And then some understanding about the endowment came to me and in researching that,

it became apparent that Adam-God is not what it is thought to be. The Adam-God Therory

is actually a paper written by apostates and is not what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor,

Wilford Woodruff, etc taught. What they taught is found in the Journal of Discoursed and various

individuals journals that captured the same public discourses the JoD did as well as some

more private teachings of Joseph and Brigham. What they taught is the true nature of God

and the truth of what happened in the garden instead of the "hollow toadstool stories" or "baby stories"

as Brigham calls them. These "stories" are told of the garden because the people were/are not mature enough

to handle and accept the truth. But the truth was restored through Joseph and he taught them to the 12, Brigham

being one of them. Interesting to note, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, The prophets and presidents

that succeeded Joseph and were taught by him also taught these same doctrines in complete harmony with what

Joseph taught.

So, If you want to know the truth of The True Identity of Adam, read the teachings of these men, true messengers from God,

and not what the many many others have said about what they think they said.

Remember, the JoD was published under the direction of the First Presidency and that Brigham said that his sermons, when corrected,

are as good a scripture as the saints deserve. and can all be treated as "thus saith the Lord". And as you read them you will come across things

that you may think are not in harmony with the scriptures. But instead of telling yourself that they must not be true and then reject them,

say to yourself how can these things be in harmony (remember that Joseph and Brigham knew the scriptures very well).

It is that approach that will bring great understanding and progress. I testify that Joseph and Brigham are indeed true messengers

from the Father and taught eternal truths. These truths are beautiful and glorious and will bring you greater understanding of The Father

and the Son than any other. If you know the true identity of Joseph Smith you will then know that he knew The Father and The Son better

than any other person that ever walked this earth in mortality and therefore was the greatest teacher of their true nature and Brigham

was his greatest student.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

Remember, the JoD was published under the direction of the First Presidency and that Brigham said that his sermons, when corrected, are as good a scripture as the saints deserve. and can all be treated as "thus saith the Lord".

That's a bit misleading. First off the Journal of Discourses was printed because the stenographer, George D. Watt, was poor and needed money. He asked if he could print the Journal of Discourses in England to earn more money than he was getting with the Deseret News. Second there's abundant evidence the stenographer modified the sermons somewhat. This is only being seen now that the shorthand rather than the printed copies are being consulted. The paper "The Prophets Have Spoken, but What Did They Say? Examining the Differences between George D. Watt's Original Shorthand Notes and the Sermons Published in the Journal of Discourses" goes through some of this. The process of going through the original Pittman shorthand is still underway. Supposedly there are some pretty significant things coming down the pipeland for papers in the MHA and books. The above BYU Studies paper is paywalled but LDS Perspectives did a good podcast on George Watt's shorthand issues. I'd definitely listen to it to get up to speed on the history.

Also I'd just note that "good as scripture" doesn't mean infallible. It's not hard to find errors in scripture too.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

LOVE this although I don't consider the endowment entirely symbolic.  There is definitely an element of literality to it.

Yes, but it does depend on what you mean by "literal."   Here is the view of the former Anglican Bishop of Durham, England:

“N.T. Wright and Pete Enns: What Do You Mean by Literal?” (BioLogos Foundation Video) “a temple story” = “the literal meaning of Genesis,” 

  

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

And then some understanding about the endowment came to me and in researching that, it became apparent that Adam-God is not what it is thought to be. The Adam-God Therory is actually a paper written by apostates and is not what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, etc taught.

I am curious to what you are referring here?  Which apostate document became the foundation for the Adam-God doctrine that was different from the teachings of the early prophets?

Quote

What they taught is found in the Journal of Discoursed and various individuals journals that captured the same public discourses the JoD did as well as some more private teachings of Joseph and Brigham. What they taught is the true nature of God and the truth of what happened in the garden instead of the "hollow toadstool stories" or "baby stories" as Brigham calls them.

I agree with this.  This is the Adam-God doctrine.  I have no idea what "paper written by apostates" is considered Adam-God and what differences it has with the teachings of the prophets you mention.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It is no such thing.  Jehovah was a God with a physical presence and body.  Jesus was a premortal spirit with no physicality.  Brigham considered them separate beings and he wrote most of the wording used in the endowment.  Jesus isn't even mentioned in the creation portion of the endowment, and Jehovah is never identified as Jesus in the endowment.

Jesus didn't become OT Jehovah in Mormonism till after Brigham died, thanks mostly to Talmage.

The problem is that there cannot be a straight sequential (chronological) take-away from the Endowment Rite.  The most striking aspect of that is the presence of Peter, James, and John as Apostles of their master Jesus Christ taking counsel directly from Jehovah and teaching the basics to Adam & Eve. How are they able to speak of their master by name when Adam & Eve have only just been exiled from the Garden?  Jesus hasn't even been born yet, and neither have they.

Moreover, Jesus identifies himself as Jehovah when he uses of the 1st person qal-causative-indicative verbal form of Hebrew hwy as ’ehye "I am"  (= Exodus 3:14 LXX & NT Greek egō eimi in John 8:58, where “I am” in the KJV is discussed in a footnote in the LDS Bible: “The term I AM used here in the Greek is identical with the Septuagint usage in Ex. 3:14 which identifies Jehovah. (Cf. also John 4:26.)”[1]


[1] LDS 1979 KJV Holy Bible, 1342 n. 58b.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Oliblish said:

In the book "Wife Number 19," Anne Eliza Young lists who played each part when she went through the temple.

Does her book provide context and the timing for each role?   Might make a difference.  In any case, my spiritual impressions and my overview of the Gospel is cogent enough that I feel confident in placing BY's "incoherence" on the shelf.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Jehovah was a God with a physical presence and body.  Jesus was a premortal spirit with no physicality.

Contradiction.  See:

D&C 29:1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I Am, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins;
D&C 38:1 Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made;
D&C 39:1 Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I Am, even Jesus Christ.

Why would you dispute that Jehovah correlates directly to the "Great I Am" which is Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God?

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, longview said:

Contradiction.  See:

D&C 29:1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I Am, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins;
D&C 38:1 Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made;
D&C 39:1 Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I Am, even Jesus Christ.

Why would you dispute that Jehovah correlates directly to the "Great I Am" which is Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God?

Because Christ wasn't Jehovah until after his resurrection.  Which would be all of the D&C.
There can be more than one Jehovah you realize.  There is no reason our Lord Jehovah Jesus Christ has to be the same Jehovah who was in the presence of Adam, Enoch, Noah, etc.  There are Adams many, Christs many, Jehovahs many, and Eloheim many.
 

One of the primary ways we know that is that Christ said he had never revealed himself to anyone before the Brother of Jared. (Ether 3:15) Yet there are several OT people who saw "the Lord/Lord God" or Jehovah face to face.

  • And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:8 )

  • And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering. (Genesis 4:3-4)

  • And I saw the Lord; and he stood before my face, and he talked with me, even as a man talketh one with another, face to face; and he said unto me: Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations. (Moses 7:4)
     
  • This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. (Genesis 6:9)

Are you disputing all these people who experienced the physical presence of Jehovah, even though Christ specified he had never shown himself to anyone?

Also 

Jehovah

- had a physical body (Exodus 24:11, Exodus 33:11, Deut 9:10)
- was prayed to (Zechariah 8:22, JST Exodus 34:14)
- was the head God (Joshua 22:22)
- formed/created our spirits (Zechariah 12:1, Jeremiah 1:4-5, Isaiah 42:5)

Premortal Christ
- did NOT have a physical body (but a spirit body Ether 3:15)
- Christ should not be prayed to (Matthew 6:9, Exodus 34:14)
- was not the head God (Isaiah 42:1 the Lord God Jehovah speaking of his servant Christ)
- was not the father/creator of our spirits (being that he was a spirit child as we were D&C 93:21)

Joseph also taught that Christ was not Jehovah.

"We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah" (Times and Seasons 15 Nov, 1841)
"Jehovah, God, Thou Eloheim, Thy Son Jesus Christ" (History of the Church 5:127)

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
2 hours ago, longview said:

Does her book provide context and the timing for each role?   Might make a difference.  

I don't know.  I have not read much of the book.  I don't know that we want to go that far into the details of the temple ceremony here anyway.

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I am curious to what you are referring here?  Which apostate document became the foundation for the Adam-God doctrine that was different from the teachings of the early prophets?

I agree with this.  This is the Adam-God doctrine.  I have no idea what "paper written by apostates" is considered Adam-God and what differences it has with the teachings of the prophets you mention.

I never said that an apostate document became the foundation for the Adam-God doctrine. There is a Paper called "The Adam-God Theory" that was written by apostates well after Joseph or Brigham mentioned the topic. I tried to read it but it is a convoluted mess with little resembling what Joseph and Brigham taught.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

I never said that an apostate document became the foundation for the Adam-God doctrine. There is a Paper called "The Adam-God Theory" that was written by apostates well after Joseph or Brigham mentioned the topic. I tried to read it but it is a convoluted mess with little resembling what Joseph and Brigham taught.

Any details on that paper?  A quick google turns up nothing.  I mean, heck, even Brian Hales has a paper by that title.

Names of the apostates?  Source of the paper?  Anything?

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because Christ wasn't Jehovah until after his resurrection.  Which would be all of the D&C.

Are you familiar with John 8:58?  Jesus explicitly stated that He was Jehovah long before Abraham walked the earth.

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There can be more than one Jehovah you realize.

I agree.

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

One of the primary ways we know that is that Christ said he had never revealed himself to anyone before the Brother of Jared. (Ether 3:15) Yet there are several OT people who saw "the Lord/Lord God" or Jehovah face to face.

I disagree.  Your defenses are heavily laden with serious wrangling of scriptures.  I don't think I should argue interpretations with you.  I do not see any reason why the pre-mortal Jesus could not write on the tablets with His spirit fingers if He was able to organize the physical earth during the Creation.

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Are you disputing all these people who experienced the physical presence of Jehovah, even though Christ specified he had never shown himself to anyone?

Yes, very much so.  You need to show the reference of how Christ specified.   Your interpretation of Ether 3:15 does not cut it (you need to study more in depth the comments of the brethren on how men needed to develop a level of faith before being privileged to see God, the brother of Jared was exceptionally faithful compared with previous prophets who took longer to eventually see God).

Edited by longview
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, longview said:

Are you familiar with John 8:58?  Jesus explicitly stated that He was Jehovah long before Abraham walked the earth.

Yes, very much so.  I don't accept that interpretation of that statement.

Quote

Yes, very much so.  You need to show the reference of how Christ specified.   Your interpretation of Ether 3:15 does not cut it (you need to study more in depth the comments of the brethren on how men needed to develop a level of faith before being privileged to see God, the brother of Jared was exceptionally faithful compared with previous prophets who took longer to eventually see God).

So in Moses 7:4 when Enoch stated that he saw Jehovah (the Lord).

  • And I saw the Lord; and he stood before my face, and he talked with me, even as a man talketh one with another, face to face; and he said unto me: Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations.

He was lying because nobody saw the premortal Christ before the brother of Jared?
Or maybe they saw two different Jehovahs?

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, very much so.  I don't accept that interpretation of that statement.

How unfortunate.  So you don't think this is the smoking gun for the "Great I Am?"

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

He was lying because nobody saw the premortal Christ before the brother of Jared?
Or maybe they saw two different Jehovahs?

Apparently you did not understand my point about progression of faith before obtaining the privilege of seeing God?  The brother of Jared was exceptional.  Those before him did see God but in a more gradual and lengthier process.   All of them did see the pre-mortal Christ.  Including those after Jared, such as Moses and Isaiah.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Any details on that paper?  A quick google turns up nothing.  I mean, heck, even Brian Hales has a paper by that title.

Names of the apostates?  Source of the paper?  Anything?

It was given to me about 10 years ago. It is an old document. I was told it was what church leaders were talking about in the early to mid 1900s when they condemned the "Adam-God Theory". Reading it was such a dark experience for me, I got rid of it Everyone I associated with at that time was aware of the document and they also were under the impression that whenever GAs referenced  "The Adam-God Theory"  that is what they were talking about. However, as time has passed, I find that very few knew of it. 

I would please ask that you be a little more careful in reading others posts before you comment on them. I have left a couple of other forums due to continued miss representations of what I've said and I find that quite offensive.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's a bit misleading. First off the Journal of Discourses was printed because the stenographer, George D. Watt, was poor and needed money. He asked if he could print the Journal of Discourses in England to earn more money than he was getting with the Deseret News. Second there's abundant evidence the stenographer modified the sermons somewhat. This is only being seen now that the shorthand rather than the printed copies are being consulted. The paper "The Prophets Have Spoken, but What Did They Say? Examining the Differences between George D. Watt's Original Shorthand Notes and the Sermons Published in the Journal of Discourses" goes through some of this. The process of going through the original Pittman shorthand is still underway. Supposedly there are some pretty significant things coming down the pipeland for papers in the MHA and books. The above BYU Studies paper is paywalled but LDS Perspectives did a good podcast on George Watt's shorthand issues. I'd definitely listen to it to get up to speed on the history.

Also I'd just note that "good as scripture" doesn't mean infallible. It's not hard to find errors in scripture too.

You are not saying that they were published against Brigham's will are you?  Did not Wat have Brigham's blessing or at least just his permission? Is there evidence yhet Brigham did not take any oppertunity to make corrections? Is it possible that the differences in the shorthand and the published text are due to Brigham. Is there any evidence as to why there are differences?

I ask these questions because I am weary of all the shadows cast on the writings of any and all the prophets of the restoration. I have been told that scripture trumps the revelations of these men, but living prophets trump all. Joseph SMith is still the keyholder of this dispensation and he stands between Thomas S. Monson and Jesus Christ. He sealed his testimony with his blood thus he trumps any and all, living or dead, prophets of this dispensation. ANd if one understood what John Taylor said about him, in canonized scripture, you would understand that Joseph trumps all but Jesus Christ. However, Jesus, Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, they all died in harmony with each other and eternal truths.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph also taught that Christ was not Jehovah.

"We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah" (Times and Seasons 15 Nov, 1841)
"Jehovah, God, Thou Eloheim, Thy Son Jesus Christ" (History of the Church 5:127)

Joseph sometimes taught that the Father was Jehovah and sometimes Jesus. And it's not just after Christ's birth as the quotes I gave earlier demonstrated.

I think you're right about multiple Jehovahs but I think you're wrong about time. And, I might add, making the same point about Adam would resolve most problems. For one you see it as office not title. Yet D&C 109 & 110 demonstrate that at the same time both the Father and Jesus are called Jehovah. So your model just doesn't work if you are saying it's an office one person occupies at a time.

It's also very significant that it's 1843 about a year before his death that Joseph is explicitly teaching that Jesus is the Jehovah in the Old Testament.

If you can, I'd suggest reading Rodney Turner's thesis "The Position of Adam in Latter-Day Scripture and Theology." He does a good job going through a lot of these issues. While it's quite dated (it's from the 50's) and thus is missing many texts not available then it is still an important read. Starting around page 90 he goes through a lot of the references.

It's also worth pointing to D&C 137 as key here. Turner brings this up as well. There the original version in his journal reads, "I saw Father Adam, Abraham, and Michael and my father and mother." This is after seeing God the Father and the Son. So he's distinguishing figures in an interesting ways. (You can find a discussion of this here) While this may well be a scribal error (I think that's how the JS Papers treats it) it may also indicate a two Adam theory. (Watson makes that claim) Even if one doesn't buy the two Adams here (and I agree it's quite speculative) it's worth noting how Adam is distinguished from God and Jesus and lower than them. D&C 137 has long been the biggest problem for the Adam/God theory. Note that other accounts of visions (possibly the same vision), from Vilate Kimball also make the distinction. Quoting from Turner's thesis.

"There Father Adam stood and opened the gate to them and as they entered he embraced them one by one, and kissed them. He then led them to the throne of God, and then the Saviour embraced each of them in the presence of of God. He saw that they all had beautiful heads of hair and all looked alike."

It's also worth noting that Brigham sometimes calls Adam Jehovah as well such as in the 8 October 1854 discourse where he is Yahovah Michael. 

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
14 hours ago, co-eternal said:

It was given to me about 10 years ago. It is an old document. I was told it was what church leaders were talking about in the early to mid 1900s when they condemned the "Adam-God Theory". Reading it was such a dark experience for me, I got rid of it Everyone I associated with at that time was aware of the document and they also were under the impression that whenever GAs referenced  "The Adam-God Theory"  that is what they were talking about. However, as time has passed, I find that very few knew of it. 

I would please ask that you be a little more careful in reading others posts before you comment on them. I have left a couple of other forums due to continued miss representations of what I've said and I find that quite offensive.

What? Is that a threat? Boo! (bold mine) P.S. JLHPROF pretty much agrees with you. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
1 hour ago, co-eternal said:

You are not saying that they were published against Brigham's will are you?  Did not Wat have Brigham's blessing or at least just his permission? Is there evidence yhet Brigham did not take any oppertunity to make corrections? Is it possible that the differences in the shorthand and the published text are due to Brigham. Is there any evidence as to why there are differences?

We don't know. Again I think Brigham's views are well know so I don't think this will ultimately affect it although it may indicate places he was inconsistent. Although there are already those such as his saying in Nov 13 1863 that Adam and Jesus have the same father. (JD 13:308-9)

My point was just to note that the Journal of Discourses are not without problems and was not published by Young or even published in Utah.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
1 hour ago, co-eternal said:

I ask these questions because I am weary of all the shadows cast on the writings of any and all the prophets of the restoration. I have been told that scripture trumps the revelations of these men, but living prophets trump all. Joseph SMith is still the keyholder of this dispensation and he stands between Thomas S. Monson and Jesus Christ. He sealed his testimony with his blood thus he trumps any and all, living or dead, prophets of this dispensation. ANd if one understood what John Taylor said about him, in canonized scripture, you would understand that Joseph trumps all but Jesus Christ. However, Jesus, Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, they all died in harmony with each other and eternal truths.

Rep point, and an Amen.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, very much so.  I don't accept that interpretation of that statement.

However, in the Doctrine and Covenants Christ affirms that he is The Great I Am in sections 29:1, 38:1, and 39:1.

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So in Moses 7:4 when Enoch stated that he saw Jehovah (the Lord).

  • And I saw the Lord; and he stood before my face, and he talked with me, even as a man talketh one with another, face to face; and he said unto me: Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations.

He was lying because nobody saw the premortal Christ before the brother of Jared?
Or maybe they saw two different Jehovahs?

Or maybe Enoch was not talking about Jehovah, but God the Father?

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because Christ wasn't Jehovah until after his resurrection.  Which would be all of the D&C.

I That is your interpretation. Not quite orthodox.

Also your citations that Jehovah had a physical body could just as well be applied to the spiritual body as noted by the Ether citation.

But as a reminder that we need to be careful of our interpretations, lets look at another verse from Ether 3:
14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

And then there is this one also from Ether 3:
16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

Glenn

Link to comment
On 11/27/2017 at 9:41 AM, Glenn101 said:

   I have read Elden Watson's treatise on the Adam-God theory and I like Clark Goble, believe that it comes the closest of the different interpretations of the Adam-God theory to being what Brigham actually meant. I also believe that it had its genesis, much like everything else Brigham taught, in Nauvoo and the the esoteric teachings of Joseph Smith to his most trusted apostles. However, without Brigham here to clarify what he was reported to having said at various times on the subject, it would be better to let the subject drop. But it will keep turning up in discussions like the proverbial bad penny until the Millennium, and I probably will still put in my two cents worth (or less).

Glenn

A friend and I actually sat at Eldon's kitchen table with him to discuss his paper. We asked him for scriptural  evidence of an Adam Jr.. We had to press him hard. He eventually came up with one verse in the D&C. I don't remember it because it had nothing to do with Adam at all. When he asked us what we believed we told him what Brigham said. He got angry and dark. I literally could not get out of his house quick enough. Only time I ever felt that dark was when I stood in the middle of the great seal of the Synagogue of Satan in McLean, VA It really scared me.

I don't trust philosophy of men mingled with scripture. But I like the words of true messengers from the Father.  Parley Pratt was not in full fellowship with the 12 and Brigham was near to ex-ing him. Parley was told to get it from the same source as Joseph and Brigham.  Parley was returned to full fellowship in the quorum. If that advise was good for Parley, it is good for me. The words of the prophets bring things to mind, clarify things, raise questions, help with answers but in the end, I get to the same source that Joseph and Brigham did.

A friend told me I should read the King Follet Discourse. While reading it, something leaped off the page, not the obvious revelation in this discourse but something else. I also found it in sect 76. It was contradictory to much of what we are taught in SS. I didn't reject It, Joseph said it. I asked "How can that be while searching and studying, with the TV on for background noise, someone on the TV said something that triggered the answer. No small or booming voice, no lights, nothing. I didn't know and then I did.  It blew me away. I had never heard anything like that before. But I knew it true. SO I search for more on it. And I found it, first in the words of Brigham, then Joseph, and then in the scriptures. And what I learned, the true nature of God, the identity of Adam was a small but integral part of it. The most beautiful and fulfilling doctrine, it is possible to understand exactly how the Atonement works, how it compensates for every thing in this life and exactly how the blood of the savior justifies and sanctifies each of us.

Get it from the same place Joseph and Brigham gets it.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...