Understanding Adam-God

[Glenn101]

7 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

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.

When reading the Journal of Discourses you do not really get the words of Brigham Young. You get the words of George D. Watt saying what he thought Brigham Young said and or meant. Clark Goble has given several references if you care to check them out. Taking that into account you will find several references to multiple Adams, but no unambiguous scriptural references. Neither will you get scriptural references to Adam coming to this world and bringing one of his celestial wives with him.

My main points is that we do not have enough firsthand information to really understand what Brigham Young was trying to teach. It is a subject that will go nowhere different than it has already gone.

As to Parley P. Pratt et al. Are you confusing Parley P. with Orson? Orson Pratt was the one who disagreed so strongly with Brigham on the Adam-God theory.

As for my understanding of the plan of salvation, it is just basic, but it came via the Holy Ghost. And that is all I need.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

On 11/26/2017 at 8:17 PM, boblloyd91 said:

So I'm sure this has been addressed before but I was wondering how believing Latter Day Saints on this board who have studied some of the more controversial things Brigham Young has said (particularly regarding Adam) have been able to understand where the heck he was coming from.

Haven't read the thread yet- has anyone mentioned the phrase "...for that is the way Father gained his knowledge"?

Most sleep through it I am convinced

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, co-eternal said:

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.

I think you mean Orson.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

When reading the Journal of Discourses you do not really get the words of Brigham Young. You get the words of George D. Watt saying what he thought Brigham Young said and or meant.

Fortunately Brigham repeated himself and his teachings are also found in personal journals, Deseret News, Millennial Star, School of the Prophets minutes, First Presidency and Council minutes, and more.
We are not dependent on the Journals of Discourses for Brigham's teachings on Adam-God.  We're not even dependent on Brigham as the only teacher, although he is the source used by other teachers.

 

[pogi]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Haven't read the thread yet- has anyone mentioned the phrase "...for that is the way Father gained his knowledge"?

Most sleep through it I am convinced

I don't interpret that to mean that Adam is God, if that is what you are implying.  It wouldn't make much sense for Satan to refer to Adam (Eve's husband) as "Father" to Eve.  It would also be strange to use the past tense, "that is how Father gained his knowledge" in referring to a future action that Adam had not yet taken.  Also, there is the whole issue of the two beings (Father and Son) appearing to Adam and Eve.

The question is, what does the fruit represent?  When we can answer that question, then we will have a much better understanding of this story.  I have my own ideas, but that is a topic for another thread.  

[co-eternal]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I think you mean Orson.

Yeap, you're right - never forget a face - never remember a name .

Sometimes I blame Orsen Hyde.

My bad, thanks.

[co-eternal]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Fortunately Brigham repeated himself and his teachings are also found in personal journals, Deseret News, Millennial Star, School of the Prophets minutes, First Presidency and Council minutes, and more.
We are not dependent on the Journals of Discourses for Brigham's teachings on Adam-God.  We're not even dependent on Brigham as the only teacher, although he is the source used by other teachers.

 

and when you see all that together in one place it becomes easy to see what they taught and believed.

[strappinglad]

8 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

and when you see all that together in one place it becomes easy to see what they taught and believed.

And yet the modern Brethren have thrown a large wet blanket over the whole thing. I wonder why.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

And yet the modern Brethren have thrown a large wet blanket over the whole thing. I wonder why.

That has always been my question.  What is so darned offensive about this doctrine?  Polygamy, blood atonement, the priesthood ban - sure, easy to see the deep offense that is possible.  

But identifying Heavenly Father and Adam as the same person may disagree with some people's  beliefs but it is hardly worthy of the hatred it gets.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That has always been my question.  What is so darned offensive about this doctrine?  Polygamy, blood atonement, the priesthood ban - sure, easy to see the deep offense that is possible.  

But identifying Heavenly Father and Adam as the same person may disagree with some people's  beliefs but it is hardly worthy of the hatred it gets.

It messes up a lot of our theology.  Like, we are taught that Heavenly Father has a perfect resurrected body and it is also our doctrine that once our bodies are resurrected, our spirits and bodies are permanently joined, never to be separated again.  Now, try to make that work with a teaching that God came back to earth, lived for a few hundred years in a fallen body, and then died.   And while He was alive, He fathered a whole bunch of people, despite Jesus supposedly being His only Son.  And, despite God being perfect and Jesus being our Mediator between us and Him, we have a few hundred years where God interacted directly with his fallen children (as one of them).  

It doesn't just disagree with some people's beliefs, it disagrees with basic Mormon beliefs.  The teaching that God and Adam were the same goes against most things that we are taught about God, and it makes sense that people would take that very very seriously.

[Bobbieaware]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That has always been my question.  What is so darned offensive about this doctrine?  Polygamy, blood atonement, the priesthood ban - sure, easy to see the deep offense that is possible.  

But identifying Heavenly Father and Adam as the same person may disagree with some people's  beliefs but it is hardly worthy of the hatred it gets.

You can’t be serious. Have you thought this through? Adam and Eve are viewed by the non-LDS Christians as the sinful villains who ‘blew it,’ causing the tragic fall of man that needlessly exposes mankind  to the horrors of death, hell and the buffetings of Satan. Identifying the immortal and eternally perfect God the father with a fallen mortal sinner is viewed by most non-LDS Christians as the ultimate heresy and theological outrage.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

You can’t be serious. Have you thought this through? Adam and Eve are viewed by the non-LDS Christians as the sinful villains who ‘blew it,’ causing the tragic fall of man that needlessly exposes mankind  to the horrors of death, hell and the buffetings of Satan. Identifying the immortal and eternally perfect God the father with a fallen, mortal sinner is viewed by most non-LDS Christians as the ultimate heresy and theological outrage.

Right, but why does this offend members so much.  It's not even in the top ten weirdest beliefs ever taught in Mormonism.
I think a member of the LDS Church would be more accepted if they stood up in sacrament meeting and expressed a belief in Trinitarian doctrine than in Adam-God.  They'd be given condescending smiles as misled Trinitarians but excommunicated for Adam-God.

Which is silly.  It is no more offensive to non-LDS Christians that the King Follett teaching that the immortal, eternally perfect God was once a fallen mortal man.  Or that Christ was not everlastingly eternal God but a created spirit child.
 

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It messes up a lot of our theology. 

It doesn't just disagree with some people's beliefs, it disagrees with basic Mormon beliefs.  The teaching that God and Adam were the same goes against most things that we are taught about God, and it makes sense that people would take that very very seriously.

Didn't seem to mess up basic Mormon beliefs for Brigham, Heber, George Q. Cannon, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, and others.  Orson on the other hand never could accept it (despite the offer to box his ears until he did).

My point is, regardless of how you or I personally view Adam-God, it seems an overreaction.  Especially since there were periods in Church history when NOT believing it could get you called before a disciplinary council.  View it as a relic of our past attributed to Brigham if you like, but I don't understand the vitriol.

Edited November 30, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Bob Crockett]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

When reading the Journal of Discourses you do not really get the words of Brigham Young. You get the words of George D. Watt saying what he thought Brigham Young said and or meant. Clark Goble has given several references if you care to check them out. Taking that into account you will find several references to multiple Adams, but no unambiguous scriptural references. Neither will you get scriptural references to Adam coming to this world and bringing one of his celestial wives with him.

 

Again, I must point out that your argument is apologetic crayola.   A good apologist must not make absurd arguments. 

Yes, Watt was both reporter and editor.  He cleaned up the pioneer-era grammar and made it more readable.  Yes, he may have been forced to do some interpretation.   

But the JoD sermons are, in almost all cases, word for word what the Deseret News first published.  The Brethren took seriously the mandate to get the sermons out to the hinterland; the JoD was really a small-circulation publication in comparison.   I have a copy of Woodruff's journal, complete, and many pages recount Brigham Young sitting and listening to sermons read to him before publication in the Deseret News.  Once published, the church had the further opportunity to correct and retract, but in the end the Deseret News sermons were the Church's version of what the brethren said or should have said.  So, it was a pioneer version of correlation.  It matters really very little what is actually said, for instance, in a priesthood manual first draft written by a Seventy; what matters is what appears on the presses and distributed to the rank and file.

I find this particular argument absurd and frivolous as a means to discredit the Adam God statements -- for which I have very little admiration and have no interest in supporting.  But I abhor boneheaded apologetic argument which will just call out laughter amongst critics.  I mean, who would take seriously an effort to impeach or criticize Chernow's recent book on U.S. Grant by exposing errors and statements made in a first draft? 

(My particular view of the Adam-God theory is that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, or of the First Presidency, is as much a prophet seer and revelator as the other apostles, and God speaks to His church through the Q12 in a correlated matter ("where two or three are gathered") and not to an individual.  Yes, Wilford Woodruff may receive a dream about the continued practice of plural marriage, but the other apostles have to put their stamp of approval upon it.  For this reason, individual brethren may float ideas for adoption and they won't be doctrine necessarily, or even correct.   A letter in the purported handwriting of John Taylor claiming to be revelation from God perpetuating plural marriage for all time was never presented to the Q12 during his lifetime, and when it was presented after his lifetime by his apostle and later apostate son, the Q12 rejected it.  It was not revelation.  Many a time I've listened to my stake president make a suggestion or request, only to see it shot down and rejected when he could not get support from the others.)

My rant is over. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't interpret that to mean that Adam is God, if that is what you are implying.  It wouldn't make much sense for Satan to refer to Adam (Eve's husband) as "Father" to Eve.  It would also be strange to use the past tense, "that is how Father gained his knowledge" in referring to a future action that Adam had not yet taken.  Also, there is the whole issue of the two beings (Father and Son) appearing to Adam and Eve.

The question is, what does the fruit represent?  When we can answer that question, then we will have a much better understanding of this story.  I have my own ideas, but that is a topic for another thread.  

No, I think the point is that Father is "AN Adam", not OUR "Adam", if you trust Satan's word for it.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The question is, what does the fruit represent?  When we can answer that question, then we will have a much better understanding of this story.  I have my own ideas, but that is a topic for another thread.  

The fruit and the aprons of fig leaves point to the same meaning.
The same meaning Eve suggests in Moses when praising their transgression.

[co-eternal]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That has always been my question.  What is so darned offensive about this doctrine?  Polygamy, blood atonement, the priesthood ban - sure, easy to see the deep offense that is possible.  

But identifying Heavenly Father and Adam as the same person may disagree with some people's  beliefs but it is hardly worthy of the hatred it gets.

Brigham had some things to say about that. Search his words for "baby stories" or "babie stories" or "hollow toadstool stories"  There was also a Deseret News article about unbelief"

But he also said his sermons, if corrected, were as good as scripture as the saints deserved. 

Mark E. Peterson was one that condemned it. But when he learned what Brigham really taught he recanted.

also, what was condemned was the Adam-God Theory. Some modern apologists say that the difference between Adam-God Theory and Adam-God Doctrine is whether you believe it or not. But that is not true. The Adam-God Theory was a paper written by apostates, I tried to read it but it was too dark for me. and what Joseph and Brigham taught was, as far as I have read, was never called the Adam-God Doctrine. OPINION ALERT: I don't think the term Adam-God Doctrine came about untill after the Adam-God Theory. for me, I call it "the true nature of God and the true Identity of Adam and what actually happened in the garden".

 

But as to your question, what is offensive? It can not be separated from polygamy (Eve and Mary - But people ignore Martha and Mary).

And people prefer the "baby story"/"hollow toadstool story"/"stork story". of the Creation and Garden.

The Irony of that is the most "objectionable" part of the truth of the garden is still official church doctrine (even though it is no longer taught) with only the identity of Elohim and Adam  obfuscated.

[co-eternal]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Again, I must point out that your argument is apologetic crayola.   A good apologist must not make absurd arguments. 

Yes, Watt was both reporter and editor.  He cleaned up the pioneer-era grammar and made it more readable.  Yes, he may have been forced to do some interpretation.   

But the JoD sermons are, in almost all cases, word for word what the Deseret News first published.  The Brethren took seriously the mandate to get the sermons out to the hinterland; the JoD was really a small-circulation publication in comparison.   I have a copy of Woodruff's journal, complete, and many pages recount Brigham Young sitting and listening to sermons read to him before publication in the Deseret News.  Once published, the church had the further opportunity to correct and retract, but in the end the Deseret News sermons were the Church's version of what the brethren said or should have said.  So, it was a pioneer version of correlation.  It matters really very little what is actually said, for instance, in a priesthood manual first draft written by a Seventy; what matters is what appears on the presses and distributed to the rank and file.

I find this particular argument absurd and frivolous as a means to discredit the Adam God statements -- for which I have very little admiration and have no interest in supporting.  But I abhor boneheaded apologetic argument which will just call out laughter amongst critics.  I mean, who would take seriously an effort to impeach or criticize Chernow's recent book on U.S. Grant by exposing errors and statements made in a first draft? 

(My particular view of the Adam-God theory is that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, or of the First Presidency, is as much a prophet seer and revelator as the other apostles, and God speaks to His church through the Q12 in a correlated matter ("where two or three are gathered") and not to an individual.  Yes, Wilford Woodruff may receive a dream about the continued practice of plural marriage, but the other apostles have to put their stamp of approval upon it.  For this reason, individual brethren may float ideas for adoption and they won't be doctrine necessarily, or even correct.   A letter in the purported handwriting of John Taylor claiming to be revelation from God perpetuating plural marriage for all time was never presented to the Q12 during his lifetime, and when it was presented after his lifetime by his apostle and later apostate son, the Q12 rejected it.  It was not revelation.  Many a time I've listened to my stake president make a suggestion or request, only to see it shot down and rejected when he could not get support from the others.)

My rant is over. 

Wow, thanks Bob, I resemble that remark.

I have a huge problem with those who would make light of Joseph, Brigham, John and Wilford.

It is in the canon of scripture that Joseph is second to Christ (what is his true identity) and that he still holds the keys of this dispensation such that he stands between Thomas S. Monson and Jesus Christ. And Brigham, John and Wilford all died in harmony with Joseph.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The fruit and the aprons of fig leaves point to the same meaning.
The same meaning Eve suggests in Moses when praising their transgression.

Agree, and that has been a traditional interpretation though Eve does not make it clear

In one of his books, Blake Ostler makes the point that partaking of the fruit was not the first sin- a transgression perhaps, yes but the first sin was hiding from God "because they were naked".  Until that act they had obeyed everything - as best as they could considering the ambiguity of eating the fruit.   It was when they hid from God that they willingly turned their backs and tried to hide the truth.

I don't know how doctrinal that is, but it is an interesting perspective.

Edited November 30, 2017 by mfbukowski

[longview]

2 hours ago, co-eternal said:

It is in the canon of scripture that Joseph is second to Christ (what is his true identity) and that he still holds the keys of this dispensation such that he stands between Thomas S. Monson and Jesus Christ.

I agree that Joseph Smith is the head of the Last Dispensation (before the Second Coming of Christ) under the authority of the Savior.  But I have to question your point that JS is second to Christ.  I took a look at the JS Papers :

"The Priesthood was first given To Adam: he obtained to the first Presidency & held the Keys of it, from generation to Generation; he obtained it in the creation before the world was formed as in Gen. 1, 26:28,— he had dominion given him over every living Creature. He (Adam) is Michael, the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures,— Then to Noah who is Gabriel, he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office & was the Father of all living in his day, & To him was Given the Dominion. These men held keys. first on earth, & then in Heaven.— The Priesthood is an everlasting principle & Existed with God from Eternity & will to Eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The Keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent.— When they are revealed from Heaven it is by Adams Authority.
"Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together. & hold a council with them. to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must Stand before him in this grand Council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action, The Son of Man Stands before him & there is given him glory & dominion.— Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the Keys of the Universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.
"Christ is the Great High priest; Adam next."

From this text, we can construct the "rankings" of various characters:  [1] God the Father, [2] Christ / the Son of Man / the Great High Priest, [3] Adam / Michael / the Archangel / Ancient of Days, [4] Noah / Gabriel.

Surely JS cannot outrank [3] or [4].  Not surprisingly, this testimony of JS also DISPROVES the A/G theory.  Just blows it out of the water.

[co-eternal]

53 minutes ago, longview said:

I agree that Joseph Smith is the head of the Last Dispensation (before the Second Coming of Christ) under the authority of the Savior.  But I have to question your point that JS is second to Christ.  I took a look at the JS Papers :

"The Priesthood was first given To Adam: he obtained to the first Presidency & held the Keys of it, from generation to Generation; he obtained it in the creation before the world was formed as in Gen. 1, 26:28,— he had dominion given him over every living Creature. He (Adam) is Michael, the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures,— Then to Noah who is Gabriel, he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office & was the Father of all living in his day, & To him was Given the Dominion. These men held keys. first on earth, & then in Heaven.— The Priesthood is an everlasting principle & Existed with God from Eternity & will to Eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The Keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent.— When they are revealed from Heaven it is by Adams Authority.
"Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together. & hold a council with them. to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must Stand before him in this grand Council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action, The Son of Man Stands before him & there is given him glory & dominion.— Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the Keys of the Universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.
"Christ is the Great High priest; Adam next."

From this text, we can construct the "rankings" of various characters:  [1] God the Father, [2] Christ / the Son of Man / the Great High Priest, [3] Adam / Michael / the Archangel / Ancient of Days, [4] Noah / Gabriel.

Surely JS cannot outrank [3] or [4].  Not surprisingly, this testimony of JS also DISPROVES the A/G theory.  Just blows it out of the water.

D&C 135

[co-eternal]

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

And yet the modern Brethren have thrown a large wet blanket over the whole thing. I wonder why.

For the same reason as the law of moses.

[co-eternal]

59 minutes ago, longview said:

I agree that Joseph Smith is the head of the Last Dispensation (before the Second Coming of Christ) under the authority of the Savior.  But I have to question your point that JS is second to Christ.  I took a look at the JS Papers :

"The Priesthood was first given To Adam: he obtained to the first Presidency & held the Keys of it, from generation to Generation; he obtained it in the creation before the world was formed as in Gen. 1, 26:28,— he had dominion given him over every living Creature. He (Adam) is Michael, the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures,— Then to Noah who is Gabriel, he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office & was the Father of all living in his day, & To him was Given the Dominion. These men held keys. first on earth, & then in Heaven.— The Priesthood is an everlasting principle & Existed with God from Eternity & will to Eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The Keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent.— When they are revealed from Heaven it is by Adams Authority.
"Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together. & hold a council with them. to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must Stand before him in this grand Council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action, The Son of Man Stands before him & there is given him glory & dominion.— Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the Keys of the Universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.
"Christ is the Great High priest; Adam next."

From this text, we can construct the "rankings" of various characters:  [1] God the Father, [2] Christ / the Son of Man / the Great High Priest, [3] Adam / Michael / the Archangel / Ancient of Days, [4] Noah / Gabriel.

Surely JS cannot outrank [3] or [4].  Not surprisingly, this testimony of JS also DISPROVES the A/G theory.  Just blows it out of the water.

And Christ is second to Adam, Christ is Adam's Son

[co-eternal]

There are two First Presidencies or Godheads associated with this world.

The King Follet DIscourse shows us that God the Father(Adam) was the Savior of a world. And as such, he was a member of the Godhead of that world.

That Godhead Consisted of Elohiem (Adam's Father),  Adam, and Jehovah. And that Godhead appeared on this world to introduce Adam to the Garden. (Elohiem had already done this so he was there to show Adam how).

After Elohim had completed his work, The First Presidency of this world was organized (actually the last task of Elohim). This new First Presidency or Godhead consists of God the Father(Adam), God the Son(Jehovah/Christ) and God the Testator (who is second to Christ).

[co-eternal]

Adam is Michael the archangel. not an archangel, the archangel. Have you ever asked yourself, Self,  what is the archangel.

D&C 129 tells us that an angel is a resurrected personage of flesh and bone. Is that not what Jusus was after he was resurrected.

And webster tells us that arch is best example of, head, prince, king.

Michael is the King resurrected personage of flesh and bone. Is that not consistent with what Joseph tells us in the King Follet Discourse. He did say the bible tells us didn't he.

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, co-eternal said:

It is in the canon of scripture that Joseph is second to Christ (what is his true identity)

AND

This new First Presidency or Godhead consists of God the Father(Adam), God the Son(Jehovah/Christ) and God the Testator (who is second to Christ).

Are you openly stating you believe Joseph Smith to be the personage of the Holy Ghost?  I don't want to misrepresent your beliefs.

That is a very unusual position for a member to hold. I know in my studies several fundamentalist groups do, and after Joseph died one of the Church leaders asked members to stop claiming that because it was believed by many and spreading.  I have wondered myself if it might be the case, but as a member I find that most members today would likely have a big issue with the idea.