Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 17, 2023 Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) Statements made by Joseph Smith in a discourse given in the summer of 1839 (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 157-159) https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-between-circa-26-june-and-circa-4-august-1839-a-as-reported-by-william-clayton/1#full-transcript “The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed” What was the “First Presidency” that Adam obtained in the Creation before the world was formed? Wouldn’t the first presidency of the creation have to be the Godhead? This is what we see in the Temple. Three God's counseled together to create this earth. One of those three Gods was Michael/Adam. The Book of Abraham also has three Gods counseling together to create the earth. See Abraham 4 and 5. Referring to the creation account in the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith stated: "Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages, according to Abraham's record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator." (TPJS, p. 190) “He [Adam] had dominion given him over every living creature.” Who else but God has dominion over every living creature? "He [Adam] is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures… and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion." Joseph Smith refers to Adam as the Father of all living. Which is the same title he applied to our Heavenly Father in the Lectures on Faith. "Having previously been made acquainted with the way the idea of his (Gods) existence came into the world, as well as the fact of his existence, we shall proceed to examine his (Gods) character, perfections and attributes, in order that this class may see, not only the just grounds which they have for the exercise of faith in him (God), for life and salvation, but the reasons that all the world, also, as far as the idea of his existence extends, may have to exercise faith in him the Father of all living." (LoF 3:6) "The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and 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 Adam's authority." Since the priesthood existed with God from eternity to eternity and is always revealed from heaven by Adam's authority, does this make Adam God? Who else but God has the authority to reveal the priesthood keys from heaven? In one of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham we see that it is God who reveals from heaven the keys of the priesthood. Joseph Smith gave the following interpretation of Figure 7 in Facsimile 2 from the Book of Abraham Papyri: "Fig. 7. Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood;" “He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men” Who but our Heavenly Father "is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men?" “The Son of Man stands before him [Adam], and there is given him glory and dominion.” Since Jesus stands before Adam at the great future council at Adam-ondi-Ahman, this suggests that Adam is greater in authority than Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ were greater in authority than Adam, wouldn't Adam stand before him at the great council, and not the other way around? And what is the glory and dominion Adam gives to Christ at this great council? As the next quote will show, this appears to be Adam’s stewardship and his keys over the universe. 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. Who but our Heavenly Father holds the keys of the universe? Who but our Heavenly Father is the head of the human family? When Joseph Smith says that Adam delivers the keys of the universe to Christ, is he referring to Christ receiving his Father's kingdom, while his Father takes a higher kingdom? From the King Follett Discourse: "What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children." “The Father called all spirits before Him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. The keys were given to him” Who or what is Adam the head of and which keys was he given? When Joseph Smith says that Adam is the head is he saying that he is the Father? How have we come at the Priesthood in the last days? It came down, down, in regular succession. Peter, James, and John had it given to them and they gave it to others. Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next. Notice the order of "regular succession" for how the priesthood was given. The order is: 1. Peter, James, and John 2. Jesus Christ 3. Adam Since we know that Jesus is higher in authority than Peter, James, and John, does this not mean that Adam is higher in authority than Jesus Christ? Who but our Heavenly Father is higher in authority than Jesus Christ? I saw Adam in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman. He called together his children and blessed them with a patriarchal blessing. The Lord appeared in their midst, and he (Adam) blessed them all, and foretold what should befall them to the latest generation. Why is Adam blessing everyone when Jesus Christ appears in their midst, if Christ is higher in authority than Adam? Joseph Smith again appears to be placing Adam as having higher authority than Christ. "The "Horn" made war with the Saints and overcame them, until the Ancient of Days came; judgment was given to the Saints of the Most High from the Ancient of Days; the time came that the Saints possessed the Kingdom. Isn't our Heavenly Father the one who we would expect to give judgment over the Saints of the most high? Statements made by Joseph Smith in a discourse given in October 1840 (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 167-169) https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/instruction-on-priesthood-circa-5-october-1840/3#full-transcript "Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the "Ancient of Days," or in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of whom it is said in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings" If we look at the description in Daniel 7 of the Ancient of Days, it appears to be a description of God. 9 ¶ I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. 10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. Who but our Heavenly Father is the "first and father of all?" "[Adam] through whom Christ has been revealed from henceforth." Isn't our Heavenly Father the one to reveal Christ? Does this mean that Adam is the one who revealed Christ from heaven to John the Baptist at the Savior's baptism and to Joseph Smith at the first vision? "Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times; i.e., the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of the dispensations that are to be revealed." Isn't our Heavenly Father the one who holds the keys over all dispensations, including Christ's dispensation? "This, then, is the nature of the Priesthood; every man holding the Presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the Presidency of them all, even Adam" See previous comment. Isn't our Heavenly Father the one who holds the keys and Presidency over all dispensations, including Christ's dispensation? "Adam receiving his Presidency and authority from the Lord, but cannot receive a fullness until Christ shall present the Kingdom to the Father, which shall be at the end of the last dispensation." Is this another reference to Christ presenting his kingdom to the Father and his Father then taking a higher kingdom? Joseph Smith statement from a meeting of the Council of Fifty: “The chairman [Joseph Smith] explained the meaning of the word ‘Ahman’ which signifies the first man or first God, and ‘Ahman Christ’ signifies the first man’s son.” (Council of 50 Minutes, the Joseph Smith Papers, pg. 83-84) Joseph Smith had previously taught that Adam was the first man. If Christ is the first man's son, does this not make Adam the Father of Jesus of Christ? Brigham Young stated that Joseph Smith had taught Adam-God It was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God &c... God comes to earth & eats & partakes of fruit. Joseph could not reveal what was revealed to him, & if Joseph had it revealed, he was not told to reveal it. (3/24/1858 Wilford W. Woodruff Journal) At meeting of School of the Prophets: President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel, & he was the Father of Jesus Christ & was our God & that Joseph taught this principle. (12/16/1867 Wilford Woodruff Journal) Is there in the heaven of heavens a leader? Yes, and we cannot do without one and that being the case, whoever [t]his is may be called God. Joseph said that Adam was our Father and God. (Brigham Young 5/14/1876 Journal History) Anson Call statement "Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet - an immortalized being and brought his wife Eve with him - and by eating of the fruit of the earth, became subject to death and decay - was made mortal and subject to death." (Joseph Smith to Anson Call, John M. Whitaker Papers) Benjamin F. Johnson statement "He [Joseph Smith] taught us that God was the great head of human procreation - was really and truly the father of both our spirits and our bodies" (1903 Letter from Benjamin F. Johnson to G. S. Gibbs, 18-19) Zebedee Coltrin stated that he had a vision in 1834 with Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery where they were shown Adam and Eve sitting upon their thrones in heaven Accounts of the vision: Joseph lay down on the ground on his back and stretched out his arms and the two brethren lay on them. The heavens gradually opened, and they saw a golden throne, on a circular foundation, something like a light house, and on the throne were two aged personages, having white hair, and clothed in white garments. They were the two most beautiful and perfect specimens of mankind he ever saw. Joseph said, They are our first parents, Adam and Eve. (Salt Lake School of the Prophets: Minute Book 1883, ed. Merle Graffam, (Salt Lake City: Pioneer Press, 2000), 102-103) “[Joseph] told me to lie by his side with my head resting upon his arm, and Oliver in like manner upon the other side. We did so, all three looking heavenwards. As I looked I saw the blue sky open. I beheld a throne, and upon the throne sat a man and a woman. Joseph asked us if we knew who they were. We answered, ‘No’. Joseph said, ‘That is father Adam and mother Eve’. Their heads were white as snow and their faces shone with immortal youth.” (N.B. Lundwall Papers, Brigham Young University, Harold B. Lee Library, L. Tom Perry Special Collections.) Another version of this vision refers to them having seen “the Father, the Mother, and the Savior:” “Pres. Peterson told of an incident which he often heard Zebedee Coltrin relate. One day the Prophet Joseph Smith asked him (Zebedee Coltrin) and Sidney Rigdon to accompany him into the woods to pray. When they had reached a secluded spot Joseph laid down on his back and stretched out his arms. He told the brethren to lie one on each arm and then shut their eyes. After they had prayed he told them to open their eyes. They did so and they saw a brilliant light surrounding a pedestal which seemed to rest on the ground. They closed their eyes and again prayed. They then saw, on opening them, the Father seated upon a throne; they prayed again and on looking saw the Mother also; after praying and looking the fourth time they saw the Savior added to the group. He had auburn brown, rather long, wavy hair and appeared quite young" (Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, 25 Aug. 1880, LDS archives). William Law testified that Joseph Smith was teaching Adam-God From the Nauvoo Expositor, June 7, 1844: “Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and many other official characters in the Church of Jesus Christ…introduced… doctrines into the Church, such as a plurality of gods above the God of this universe and his ability to fall with all his creations; the plurality of wives, for time and eternity; the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life, against all crimes except that of shedinginnocent blood,” https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text This is the essence of the Adam-God doctrine. That there are a plurality of Gods above the God of this universe (Adam), who fell on this earth with all of his creations. Excerpt from the poem “Buckeye’s Lamentation for Want of More Wives," Warsaw Message, 7 February 1844: But we have other teaching now, Of greater glories far; How a single glory”s nothing more Than some lone twinkling star. A two-fold glory”s like the moon, That shines so sweet at night, Reflecting from her gracious lord Whatever he thinks right. A tenfold glory-that”s the prize! Without it you”re undone! But with it you will shine as bright As the bright shining sun. There you may reign like mighty Gods, Creating worlds so fair;- At least a world for every wife That you take with you there. The man that has got ten fair wives, Ten worlds he may create; And he that has got less than this, Will find a bitter fate. The one or two that he may have, He”d be deprived of then; And they”ll be given as talents were To him who has got ten. https://william-law.org/publications/buckeys-lamentation-for-want-of-more-wives-warsaw-message-7-february-1844/ https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/poem-7-february-1844/4#full-transcript In this poem, William Law is making fun of things he observed Joseph Smith doing and teaching. This part of the poem matches what Brigham Young taught about God having created many worlds and that for each of his world's a different one of his wives is the Heavenly Mother. Adam being our Heavenly Father who brought one of his wives, Eve, with him to this world to be our Heavenly Mother. Edited February 17, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal 4
JLHPROF Posted February 17, 2023 Posted February 17, 2023 I am of the opinion that Joseph didn't teach Adam God on the record ever. I'm also of the opinion that if he did have that belief and understanding that he came to it extremely late in his life, around the time he came to understand the King Follett doctrines. Both Brigham and Eliza claimed they learned it from him but it appears in no discourse. His teachings on Adam do seem to progress but there is no record of a teaching where Adam was either Heavenly Father or the father of Jesus. At least no written record. 3
Popular Post OGHoosier Posted February 17, 2023 Popular Post Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) @Grug the Neanderthal Thank you. This is rather clarifying. William Law's account, imo, does indicate that Joseph thought Gods could fall, but I don't think that doctrine is exclusively related to Adam-God, nor is the creation of worlds. Just because a particular idea is part of the Adam-God memeplex of ideas, does not imply that the full memeplex is present whenever one element appears. I have some very grave misgivings about your interpretation of Joseph Smith's comments of 1839. There's a big part of all this that you leave out...in fact, it gets covered with an ellipsis, which means that your quotes are misleading. I'm talking about the part where Gabriel/Noah is mentioned. Gabriel gets many of the same titles that Michael does, but there is no Noah-God theory. Here's the relevant section: Quote The priesthood was first given to Adam, he obtained the first presidency and 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 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, and was the father of all living in his day and to him was given [p. 11] the dominion. These men held keys first on earth and then in heaven. From here on out, all bolding and italicizing is mine. First, your point #3 implies that Michael was the father of all living in his day and to him was given the dominion. True...but Joseph doesn't stop there. What Joseph is saying is that Adam was first given the priesthood (given by whom, if he is already God?), who obtained the first presidency and held the keys of it from generation to generation. You interpret "the first presidency" (you added the capitalization without mentioning it, by the way. It's historically irresponsible to edit texts like that without mentioning it.) to mean the presiding quorum of three as it does in the organizational structure of the church, but that seems anachronistic to me, especially since First Presidency is not usually referred to as an object. I think it means Adam held the first chronological presidency; he was the first president on earth. "Then to Noah who is Gabriel, he stands next in authority to Adam in the priesthood. He was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth and then in heaven." You chop this section up into 3 points and use ellipses to conveniently get rid of the part that makes the text say something different than what your theory demands. This is a mangling of the text, there's no other way to explain it. Noah also gets the title "father of all living", he gets the dominion, he gets keys, he was called of God (who is referred to separately from Adam. Adam is called Archangel, not God) - Noah basically gets all the titles Adam does. Was Joseph teaching Noah-God theory too? No, that's absurd. Clearly these titles are relative to mortality. Also, Joseph straight up says Adam held keys first on earth and then in heaven...which is clearly not a description of God. Also, I'll note that Noah stands "next in authority to Adam," and is clearly subordinate, which suggests that Joseph intends "next" to mean subordination. This will be important later. Frankly I think that's enough to make my point, but let's keep going. In points #4 and 5, you commit the error of saying that only God can do something. This is not true - lieutenants bearing God's properly delegated authority can act in His stead. That's what priesthood keys are. That's what Michael the Archangel holds according to D&C 78:15-16, which states that Michael is given "the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life." Now we come to the eschatological conference at Adam-ondi-Ahman. Quote Daniel 7. speaks of the Ancient of Days, he means the oldest man our Father Adam, Michael. He will call his children together and 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 and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand [p. 12] before him in this great council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of man stands before him and there is given him glory and 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. Some context would be appropriate here. The Son of Man is given glory and dominion...because the prophets delivering up their stewardship to him. As is clearly stated when Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ. There's no implication here that Adam is going on to a higher kingdom - rather he simply retains his standing as head of the human family which he is by right of ancestry. You add the suggestion that Adam is going on to a higher kingdom in points #7 and 16, but both times it's not implied by the text; you are glossing over Joseph's clear subordination of Adam to Christ. Point #8 is spurious, Adam is clearly given keys, he's not the Father. Let's talk about Point #9 though. Here's the relevant text from Joseph's sermon: Quote How have we come at priesthood in the last days— they come down in regular succession. Peter, James and [p. 14] John had it given to them and they gave it up. Christ is the great High Priest. Adam next. Christ is "the great High Priest. Adam next" You depict this as Adam being higher then Christ; however, in the case of Noah, "next" clearly means subordinate, especially since "the great High Priest" is an exalted title. If Adam is really higher in authority, why doesn't Joseph just say so? Brigham didn't have a problem with it! Your whole case depends on ambiguities in Joseph's words which you subject to an interpretation at odds with the rest of his comments. As for your point #10, you ask why Adam would bless people if Christ was there. However, Joseph teaches in the very next sentence that patriarchs give blessings in order to bring their people into the presence of the Lord: "This is why Abraham blessed his posterity. He wanted to bring them into the presence of God; they looked for a city &c. Moses saught to bring the children of Israel into the presence of God through [p. 15] the power of the priesthood; but he could not." You completely turn around the function of blessings. #11 is again a case where you presumptively rule out divine delegation. I'm going to follow this with another post covering Joseph's 1840 speech which you quote, because this post is getting long. I don't mean to be insulting, and I try not to speak personally, but I have to say it: your reading of this sermon is 100% eisegetical. Edited February 17, 2023 by OGHoosier 5
Popular Post OGHoosier Posted February 17, 2023 Popular Post Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) @Grug the Neanderthal Here's my response to your citations of Joseph Smith's 1840 speech. I'll say it again. God can delegate His powers and authority. That is literally the whole point of the priesthood, and Joseph Smith explicitly says in D&C 78:15-16 that God gave Michael "the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One." Just because Adam does something you would expect God to do, does not mean Adam is God. With that in mind, all of your interpretations regarding this speech disappear. You know what doesn't disappear? The following sections from this exact same speech, which demonstrate that God and Adam are separate. Quote And again, God purposed in himself that there should not be an eternal fulness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one [p. 2] and that all things whatsoever that should be gathered together in one in those dispensations, unto the same fulness and eternal glory should be in Christ Jesus; therefore he set the ordinances to be the same for Ever and ever and set Adam to watch over them to reveal them from heaven to man or to send Angels to reveal them Heb 1 Chap. 16 verse. [“]Are they not all ministring spirits sent forth to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation.” These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam who acts under the direction of Christ. Quote In the beginning God called Adam by his own voice See Genesis 3 Chap 9 & 10 verses. [“]And the Lord called unto Adam and said unto him where art thou, and he said I heard thy voice in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked and hid myself.[”] Adam received commandments and instruction from God, this was the order from the begining: that he received revelations, Commandments, and ordinances at the begining is beyond the power of controversy, else, how did they begin to to offer sacrifices to God in an acceptable manner? [p. 3] Quote This then is the nature of the priesthood, every man holding the presidency of his dispensation and one man holding the presidency of them all even Adam. and Adam receiving his Presidency and Authority from Christ, but cannot receive a fulness, untill Christ shall present, the Kingdom to the Father which shall be at the end of the last dispensation— Joseph Smith is not on record anywhere saying that Adam is God. He is on record saying the opposite, and all you can do to oppose that is summon up reminiscences given at least 40 years after the fact, in an environment where Adam-God had already been introduced! That does not compare with Joseph's own words. Edited February 17, 2023 by OGHoosier 5
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 17, 2023 Author Posted February 17, 2023 3 hours ago, OGHoosier said: I have some very grave misgivings about your interpretation of Joseph Smith's comments of 1839. There's a big part of all this that you leave out...in fact, it gets covered with an ellipsis, which means that your quotes are misleading. I didn't really provide an interpretation of Joseph's comments. You'll notice that most of my commentary is in the form of questions in the hopes of generating a discussion and having people think about whether or not Joseph may have taught Adam-God. Nowhere did I state that I was trying to prove that Joseph Smith taught Adam-God or that Adam-God was true doctrine. You asked me to provide evidence that Joseph Smith may have taught Adam-God. Which is what I did and it took up hours of my time to do this. So I find it to be in really poor taste that you not only dismiss most of the evidence out of hand and misrepresent my commentary, but also call my integrity into question. 3 hours ago, OGHoosier said: I'm talking about the part where Gabriel/Noah is mentioned. 4 hours ago, OGHoosier said: You chop this section up into 3 points and use ellipses to conveniently get rid of the part that makes the text say something different than what your theory demands. This is a mangling of the text, there's no other way to explain it. Noah also gets the title "father of all living", he gets the dominion, he gets keys, he was called of God (who is referred to separately from Adam. Adam is called Archangel, not God) - Noah basically gets all the titles Adam does. Was Joseph teaching Noah-God theory too? No, that's absurd. Clearly these titles are relative to mortality. In your zeal to discredit the quotes I shared, you have apparently forgotten that I acknowledged in the other thread that there are statements by Joseph Smith that appear to contradict Adam-God. This is one of them. I'm happy to come back to the Gabriel/Noah issue later, but for now I'd like to stick to the quotes and questions I shared. 3 hours ago, OGHoosier said: What Joseph is saying is that Adam was first given the priesthood (given by whom, if he is already God?), who obtained the first presidency and held the keys of it from generation to generation. You interpret "the first presidency" (you added the capitalization without mentioning it, by the way. It's historically irresponsible to edit texts like that without mentioning it.) I didn't edit the text. I took it straight from how it reads in the TPJS, which I cited. This is also how it reads in the DHC. As for who gave Adam the priesthood, for Adam-God believers the answer would be that Adam either received it on the earth were he came from or from his God before he was made God of this earth. Brigham Young considered Adam's Heavenly Father to be our Heavenly Grandfather. 4 hours ago, OGHoosier said: I think it means Adam held the first chronological presidency; he was the first president on earth. Joseph said that "He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed." Joseph's terminology is very similar to what he said in the other quote I shared about the everlasting covenant being made between 3 Gods before this earth was formed, which you completely ignored. So I think that your interpretation is problematic. 4 hours ago, OGHoosier said: Also, Joseph straight up says Adam held keys first on earth and then in heaven...which is clearly not a description of God. Which earth is Joseph referring to? This earth or the earth where Adam came from before he was placed in the Garden of Eden? 4 hours ago, OGHoosier said: In points #4 and 5, you commit the error of saying that only God can do something. No, I didn't say that only God can do something. I asked questions to generate thought and discussion. 4 hours ago, OGHoosier said: There's no implication here that Adam is going on to a higher kingdom - rather he simply retains his standing as head of the human family which he is by right of ancestry. You add the suggestion that Adam is going on to a higher kingdom in points #7 and 16, but both times it's not implied by the text Again, I asked questions. Let's look at the statement again. "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." You didn't address Joseph stated that Adam is delivering up his keys which he holds over the universe to Christ. That really doesn't sound like there's any possibility that Joseph is saying that Adam is the Father who is handing his kingdom (the universe) over to Christ? And what about this statement: "Adam... cannot receive a fullness until Christ shall present the Kingdom to the Father, which shall be at the end of the last dispensation." In the context of Adam-God this could potentially fit with Adam being the Father who takes a higher kingdom. 4 hours ago, OGHoosier said: If Adam is really higher in authority, why doesn't Joseph just say so? Brigham didn't have a problem with it! There are a couple of possibilities. 1) Joseph wasn't permitted to openly teach this or didn't feel comfortable teaching it openly at this point in time because the saints weren't ready for it, and he only hinted at it. 2) He was still in the process of learning the full picture of Adam-God and didn't fully understand it yet in 1839. 4 hours ago, OGHoosier said: You know what doesn't disappear? The following sections from this exact same speech, which demonstrate that God and Adam are separate. You are again calling my integrity into question here, which I don't appreciate. Which God is being referred to in this section? According to Adam-God, Adam has a God or Heavenly Father over him. 4 hours ago, OGHoosier said: Joseph Smith is not on record anywhere saying that Adam is God. Not, explicitly, no. But I think there is definitely evidence that he could have been hinting at it publicly and teaching it more explicitly privately. 4 hours ago, OGHoosier said: all you can do to oppose that is summon up reminiscences given at least 40 years after the fact, in an environment where Adam-God had already been introduced! Yeah, because that's the only evidence I provided that Joseph Smith may have taught Adam-God. Right... William Law's statements were from 1844, while Joseph Smith was alive. And Brigham's statement weren't 40 years later, either. You must either believe that Brigham was lying or that he was clueless about what Joseph Smith was teaching. Same goes for the other statements from witnesses who personally knew Joseph Smith and were taught by him.
OGHoosier Posted February 17, 2023 Posted February 17, 2023 19 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: I didn't really provide an interpretation of Joseph's comments. Yes, you did provide an interpretation. You didn't assert the interpretation, granted, but you provided one. Though I consider leading questions to be veiled assertions in their own right. 20 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: In your zeal to discredit the quotes I shared, you have apparently forgotten that I acknowledged in the other thread that there are statements by Joseph Smith that appear to contradict Adam-God. This is one of them. I'm happy to come back to the Gabriel/Noah issue later, but for now I'd like to stick to the quotes and questions I shared. The problem is that you didn't share the complete quote. Ellipsis are for when the omitted material is truly irrelevant. The stuff about Gabriel is not irrelevant, because Gabriel is the referent of the second half of the quote! 22 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: I didn't edit the text. I took it straight from how it reads in the TPJS, which I cited. This is also how it reads in the DHC. You capitalized First Presidency when it is not capitalized in the original source. That changes the meaning of the words, because "First Presidency" capitalized is a proper noun, a reference to a specific institution. That institution is not necessarily the subject here. 26 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Joseph said that "He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed." Yeah, he was foreordained to it. 27 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Which earth is Joseph referring to? This earth or the earth where Adam came from before he was placed in the Garden of Eden? I see no reason to believe that any other earth is implied. 28 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: You didn't address Joseph stated that Adam is delivering up his keys which he holds over the universe to Christ. That really doesn't sound like there's any possibility that Joseph is saying that Adam is the Father who is handing his kingdom (the universe) over to Christ? Considering that God has delegated to Michael the keys of salvation per D&C 78, there is no reason to believe this means that Adam is God handing the kingdom over to Christ. 29 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Yeah, because that's the only evidence I provided that Joseph Smith may have taught Adam-God. Right... William Law's statements were from 1844, while Joseph Smith was alive. And Brigham's statement weren't 40 years later, either. You must either believe that Brigham was lying or that he was clueless about what Joseph Smith was teaching. Same goes for the other statements from witnesses who personally knew Joseph Smith and were taught by him. And William Law's statements don't have Adam-God, they have ideas related to Adam-God. Like I said, the presence of isolated ideas from the Adam-God memeplex does not imply the presence of Adam-God itself. As for Brigham, I agree with D. Charles Pyle's assessment: Quote Heber C. Kimball actually was the first person to speak on the subject. What led to misunderstanding was that their background tradition was that the Ancient of days was God the Father. That influenced Heber C. Kimball and Brigham Young when they were taught that Adam was the Ancient of days by Joseph Smith at Luke Johnson’s house. In addition, in an organizational sense one God in particular was appointed and put in charge of us, and that person was Adam. That is why the priesthood is committed under the direction of Adam, and why all must come up before Adam prior to the second coming of Christ. In essence, they put 2 and 2 together and got 5. But President Young admitted to not caring enough to inquire for a moment how that was. He felt that if he were wrong, God would call him up and correct him. And that was his problem. Brigham misinterpreted Joseph's teachings due to his background tradition, and didn't do due diligence in correcting it. 2
rodheadlee Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 God could have been an Adam but not our Adam I think this is where confusion comes in. Carry on. 1
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 18, 2023 Author Posted February 18, 2023 47 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: I consider leading questions to be veiled assertions in their own right. I think you assumed that they were leading questions and then went into full defense mode because you consider it to be a sacred cow that Brigham Young was wrong about Adam-God and that Joseph Smith taught it. 49 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: The problem is that you didn't share the complete quote. I could have shared the entire discourse and highlighted the parts I quoted (which is how I had it in my original study), but was trying to safe space. I wasn't trying to hide anything or misrepresent what Joseph Smith said. We can discuss the Gabriel thing later. I have some thoughts on that. I don't think it's nearly as problematic for Adam-God as you think. 52 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: You capitalized First Presidency when it is not capitalized in the original source. You're seriously doubling down on this false accusation? You obviously didn't go back check the TPJS or DHC did you? Please do that. I'll wait for your apology. 54 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: "First Presidency" capitalized is a proper noun, a reference to a specific institution. That institution is not necessarily the subject here. I never suggested that it was, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. And why are you sidestepping the other quote about the 3 Gods who made an everlasting covenant in the creation before the world was formed? The Temple has 3 individuals who were involved in the creation of this earth, Michael/Adam being one of them. The idea that Michael/Adam is God the Third and that this is the first presidency being referred to is not at all farfetched. 1 hour ago, OGHoosier said: I see no reason to believe that any other earth is implied. I'm sure you don't, but that doesn't mean that Joseph Smith wasn't referring to a previous earth. 1 hour ago, OGHoosier said: Considering that God has delegated to Michael the keys of salvation per D&C 78, there is no reason to believe this means that Adam is God handing the kingdom over to Christ. Unless the God who delegated those keys to Michael/Adam was his Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Grandfather as Brigham Young taught. 1 hour ago, OGHoosier said: they have ideas related to Adam-God. My point exactly. They don't explicitly say that Adam is God, but the one about God's ability to fall with all of his creations is pretty darn close in my opinion. Who fell with all of creation? Michael/Adam did. (The same Adam who was one of the Gods who helped create the earth per the temple) 1 hour ago, OGHoosier said: Brigham misinterpreted Joseph's teachings due to his background tradition, and didn't do due diligence in correcting it. You're welcome to believe this, but the counter position is also valid. Which is that Brigham Young, who was personally taught by Joseph Smith, correctly understood what Joseph's veiled references meant and had his understanding confirmed by revelation from the Holy Ghost.
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 18, 2023 Author Posted February 18, 2023 7 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I am of the opinion that Joseph didn't teach Adam God on the record ever. I'm also of the opinion that if he did have that belief and understanding that he came to it extremely late in his life, around the time he came to understand the King Follett doctrines. Both Brigham and Eliza claimed they learned it from him but it appears in no discourse. His teachings on Adam do seem to progress but there is no record of a teaching where Adam was either Heavenly Father or the father of Jesus. At least no written record. So are you of the opinion that Brigham Young misinterpreted the teachings of Joseph Smith about Adam or do you think that Joseph Smith did come to believe this and that Brigham legitimately got this teaching from Joseph Smith and personal revelation?
Tacenda Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 17 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: So are you of the opinion that Brigham Young misinterpreted the teachings of Joseph Smith about Adam or do you think that Joseph Smith did come to believe this and that Brigham legitimately got this teaching from Joseph Smith and personal revelation? I wasn't able to get through all of it but wondered if it's something you'd like to read and see if you get the answers you need. https://rationalfaiths.com/the-adam-god-cover-up/
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 18, 2023 Author Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I wasn't able to get through all of it but wondered if it's something you'd like to read and see if you get the answers you need. https://rationalfaiths.com/the-adam-god-cover-up/ I read this article several years ago. I know all about the church’s Adam-God cover-up. But I just read Corbin’s article again. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing! Edited February 18, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal
OGHoosier Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 47 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: I think you assumed that they were leading questions and then went into full defense mode because you consider it to be a sacred cow that Brigham Young was wrong about Adam-God and that Joseph Smith taught it. Nah, they were just leading questions. 48 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: I could have shared the entire discourse and highlighted the parts I quoted (which is how I had it in my original study), but was trying to safe space. I wasn't trying to hide anything or misrepresent what Joseph Smith said. We can discuss the Gabriel thing later. I have some thoughts on that. I don't think it's nearly as problematic for Adam-God as you think. It remains a relevant counter point. I look forward to your harmonization. 48 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: You're seriously doubling down on this false accusation? You obviously didn't go back check the TPJS or DHC did you? Please do that. I'll wait for your apology. The document you posted is here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-between-circa-26-june-and-circa-4-august-1839-a-as-reported-by-william-clayton/1 As you can see, "first presidency" is not capitalized. Here's another transcript, this one by Willard Richards, in which "Presidency" is capitalized but "first" is not, thus strengthening my case for a chronological reading: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-between-circa-26-june-and-circa-4-august-1839-a-as-reported-by-willard-richards/1 I apologize for suggesting you did so intentionally. You were not, however, closely following your source. 54 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: And why are you sidestepping the other quote about the 3 Gods who made an everlasting covenant in the creation before the world was formed? The Temple has 3 individuals who were involved in the creation of this earth, Michael/Adam being one of them. The idea that Michael/Adam is God the Third and that this is the first presidency being referred to is not at all farfetched. I'm not mentioning it because it's not relevant! It doesn't occur in the same passage and Joseph Smith doesn't connect them. Indeed, since Gabriel is given the dominion as well, the text itself say nothing about the "first presidency" in this context referring to a trio of Gods. Your whole methodology is seeing Joseph Smith use a concept Brigham Young later used in his Adam-God exposition, then pointing to it and suggesting that Joseph was really making veiled references to Adam-God the whole time. That's not evidence of Joseph teaching Adam-God; that's evidence of reading your own conclusions into what Joseph said. 1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: You're welcome to believe this, but the counter position is also valid. Which is that Brigham Young, who was personally taught by Joseph Smith, correctly understood what Joseph's veiled references meant and had his understanding confirmed by revelation from the Holy Ghost. Except I have good reason not to believe this as a) later prophets with the same authority as Brigham kiboshed this theory, and b) there's a good causal explanation (whose factors are all evidenced) as to how Brigham got his wires crossed. 2
JLHPROF Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: So are you of the opinion that Brigham Young misinterpreted the teachings of Joseph Smith about Adam or do you think that Joseph Smith did come to believe this and that Brigham legitimately got this teaching from Joseph Smith and personal revelation? I think either Brigham took Joseph's King Follett teachings and ran with them OR Joseph had just begun teaching it privately to him and Eliza and others. I lean to the latter - something he would eventually have taught since his recorded 1840s teachings were definitely heading that way. From the three personage godhead to the God was once a mortal man I see elements of Adam-God in his teachings as you clearly outlined. He just never actually said it on the record. 1
Tacenda Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I think either Brigham took Joseph's King Follett teachings and ran with them OR Joseph had just begun teaching it privately to him and Eliza and others. I lean to the latter - something he would eventually have taught since his recorded 1840s teachings were definitely heading that way. From the three personage godhead to the God was once a mortal man I see elements of Adam-God in his teachings as you clearly outlined. He just never actually said it on the record. I sat in the place that Joseph gave the King Follett talk with an actor doing it and I think I lean the same way as you.
Tacenda Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) dbl post dang it Edited February 18, 2023 by Tacenda
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 18, 2023 Author Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, OGHoosier said: Nah, they were just leading questions. Even if they were, you still immediately decided to dig in and aggressively defend your sacred cow, even going so far as to repeatedly call my integrity into question. Don't forget that you had asked me to provide evidence that Joseph Smith may have taught Adam-God. So of course I'm going to ask questions and suggest connections that show how the statements I shared could be evidence of Joseph Smith having taught Adam-God teachings. So I consider the way you aggressively attacked the evidence you asked me to provide and called my integrity into question to be in very poor taste. 1 hour ago, OGHoosier said: I apologize for suggesting you did so intentionally. You were not, however, closely following your source. Again, I did NOT change the original source. I copied and pasted both discourses from the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith book, which I have a digital copy of. (I cited this as my source, too.) "First Presidency" is capitalized in that source. It is also capitalized in the DHC. I included the link to the original source for full transparency. And finally I see no significance to the capitalization. I again find it in poor taste that you were calling my integrity into question. But I do appreciate that you at least apologized for suggesting that I intentionally doctored this line from the original source in order to alter its meaning. 1 hour ago, OGHoosier said: I'm not mentioning it because it's not relevant! It doesn't occur in the same passage and Joseph Smith doesn't connect them. It is relevant. It doesn't really matter that Joseph Smith didn't connect the two together. The terminology is similar and making a connection between the two is logical, especially given what we know about Michael/Adam being one of the three individuals involved in the creation in the endowment. 1 hour ago, OGHoosier said: Your whole methodology is seeing Joseph Smith use a concept Brigham Young later used in his Adam-God exposition, then pointing to it and suggesting that Joseph was really making veiled references to Adam-God the whole time. Brigham Young is on record three times stating that Joseph Smith taught Adam-God. In one of those statements he said that Joseph was unable to tell all he knew about it. So yes, of course I'm working backwards and looking for similarities between Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings and known statements about Adam from Joseph Smith to see if there is any evidence to support what Brigham claimed. 1 hour ago, OGHoosier said: That's not evidence of Joseph teaching Adam-God I beg to differ. 1 hour ago, OGHoosier said: It remains a relevant counter point. I look forward to your harmonization. We can dig into this more if you would like, but a couple of thoughts for now: 1) An essential part of Adam-God is the concept of individuals who have previously lived on an earth and been resurrected having another mortal experience on another earth. Even among Adam-God believers there are different ideas about how this all works. Some believe that Joseph Smith taught what is commonly referred to as Multiple Mortal Probations, which goes beyond the basic premise of Adam-God to include all people going through multiple mortal probations until they eventually become exalted in the Celestial kingdom and become as God is. Under this principle, Gabriel/Noah could have already been previously resurrected like Michael/Adam was and be working in close connection with Michael/Adam in his role as the Father in Heaven of this earth. 2) The scribe who recorded the discourse didn't record it exactly right and instead wrote down the essence of what he understood Joseph teach, which would have been heavily influenced by his current understanding, which wouldn't have included Adam-God. 3) Joseph Smith was still figuring things out in regards to Adam-God in 1839 and 1840 and didn't teach it quite right. 4) Joseph Smith intentionally taught some misleading things publicly in order to veil what he was saying about Adam-God so only those who were open and ready to receive it would understand. 5) A combination of explanations 1-4 Edited February 18, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal
OGHoosier Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: It is relevant. It doesn't really matter that Joseph Smith didn't connect the two together. The terminology is similar and making a connection between the two is logical, especially given what we know about Michael/Adam being one of the three individuals involved in the creation in the endowment. It absolutely is relevant, because Joseph isn't tying them together, you are. Again, this scattershot methodology of taking a phrase or a concept which Brigham Young uses to teach Adam-God, seeing Joseph Smith use it in a different context, and taking it as a "veiled hint" at Adam-God, is utterly unconvincing. 45 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Brigham Young is on record three times stating that Joseph Smith taught Adam-God. In one of those statements he said that Joseph was unable to tell all he knew about it. So yes, of course I'm working backwards and looking for similarities between Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings and known statements about Adam from Joseph Smith to see if there is any evidence to support what Brigham claimed. Edit: If you really are working backwards and looking for evidence to support what Brigham claimed, I suggest there is not, because Joseph never identifies Adam as God. He can only be suggested to do so if you assume Brigham's assessment of Joseph's teaching as fact and then reinterpret everything on the assumption that Joseph was "veiling the mysteries." That's totally circular. I expect Brigham Young held on to his belief that "Ancient of Days" means God and interpreted Joseph Smith's teachings in that light. But there is no evidence of Joseph Smith himself teaching this, and I would argue that his public statements are not just silent but actually contradict it given that he clearly depicts Adam as subservient to Christ, with delegated powers from the Father. Given the very separate depictions of Adam and the Father in the temple endowment, in the Book of Moses, and in the D&C, I simply don't think that Joseph taught Adam-God in any authoritative sense - at best you could speculate that he mused about it in private but there is no record of him putting his authority behind it. Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball certainly knew him well. So did John Taylor, Orson Pratt, and Wilford Woodruff. And John Taylor canonized the non-Adam-God Book of Moses, while Wilford Woodruff authorized Joseph F. Smith to reject Adam-God once and for all. The weight of the evidence is not with Brigham here. Edited February 18, 2023 by OGHoosier 1
OGHoosier Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 35 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: 1) An essential part of Adam-God is the concept of individuals who have previously lived on an earth and been resurrected having another mortal experience on another earth. Even among Adam-God believers there are different ideas about how this all works. Some believe that Joseph Smith taught what is commonly referred to as Multiple Mortal Probations, which goes beyond the basic premise of Adam-God to include all people going through multiple mortal probations until they eventually become exalted in the Celestial kingdom and become as God is. Under this principle, Gabriel/Noah could have already been previously resurrected like Michael/Adam was and be working in close connection with Michael/Adam in his role as the Father in Heaven of this earth. 2) The scribe who recorded the discourse didn't record it exactly right and instead wrote down the essence of what he understood Joseph teach, which would have been heavily influenced by his current understanding, which wouldn't have included Adam-God. 3) Joseph Smith was still figuring things out in regards to Adam-God in 1839 and 1840 and didn't teach it quite right. 4) Joseph Smith intentionally taught some misleading things publicly in order to veil what he was saying about Adam-God so only those who were open and ready to receive it would understand. #2 doesn't work because both William Clayton and Willard Richards record this particular sermon, and they say the same thing. #3 and #4 say that Joseph either didn't know what he was talking about, or wasn't telling the truth in this sermon. In which case, it's odd that you would cite the sermon as evidence of Joseph's thinking. #1 is the most interesting argument, to be sure, but I think it fails because it requires the additional layer of MMP to be layered on top of what Joseph actually said. It's more reasonable to say that he was speaking in accordance with his other revelations and sermons, in which Gabriel and Michael are the same kind of servant to the Lord, both subsidiary to Christ. And that is the big problem of all of this. In order to put Adam-God in the mouth of Joseph, you have to take these extraneous concepts and ideas, identify elements of them, and then say that when Joseph said X he really meant Y. And that is just eisegesis. It's just plain putting words in the Prophet's mouth. 2
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 18, 2023 Author Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 19 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: Again, this scattershot methodology of taking a phrase or a concept which Brigham Young uses to teach Adam-God, seeing Joseph Smith use it in a different context, and taking it as a "veiled hint" at Adam-God, is utterly unconvincing. It’s utterly unconvincing to you who are defending your sacred cow and refusing to be open to the possibility that your take on Adam-God could be wrong. Had I known that you only wanted me to take the time to share all the evidence that Joseph may have taught Adam-God so you could immediately turn around and aggressively try to destroy it and call my integrity into question, I wouldn’t have bothered taking the time do it. Lesson learned I guess. 19 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: And there is not. There isn’t proof that he taught it, but there is evidence that he may have. Look, I get that you firmly believe that Brigham Young was wrong about Adam-God and that Joseph Smith didn’t teach it. And that’s fine. I’m not trying to convince you to change your mind. But I do wish that you would acknowledge that those who do believe in Adam-God also have evidence that supports their belief and that it’s not completely one sided like you are making it out to be. Edited February 18, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 18, 2023 Author Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 22 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: #1 is the most interesting argument, to be sure, but I think it fails because it requires the additional layer of MMP to be layered on top of what Joseph actually said. There’s evidence that Joseph Smith taught MMP. But that’s a topic for another day. 22 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: #2 doesn't work because both William Clayton and Willard Richards record this particular sermon, and they say the same thing. I'll have to go back and compare the two versions. 22 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: 3 and #4 say that Joseph either didn't know what he was talking about, or wasn't telling the truth in this sermon. In which case, it's odd that you would cite the sermon as evidence of Joseph's thinking. Just going off what Brigham Young said about Joseph not being able to say all that he knew about the subject. There’s also a big difference in not understanding something perfectly and "not knowing what he was talking about" or making some misleading statements in order to veil the truth from those who weren’t ready for it and he "wasn’t telling the truth." Edited February 18, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 18, 2023 Author Posted February 18, 2023 33 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: If you really are working backwards and looking for evidence to support what Brigham claimed, I suggest there is not, because Joseph never identifies Adam as God. He can only be suggested to do so if you assume Brigham's assessment of Joseph's teaching as fact and then reinterpret everything on the assumption that Joseph was "veiling the mysteries." That's totally circular. I don’t think it’s circular at all. It’s taking a claim that a prophet, seer, and revelator is on record for making 3 times and then looking to see if there is any evidence to support it. And there is. The evidence I posted in this thread does fit with Adam-God (some of it better than others). That doesn’t mean that there’s iron clad proof that Joseph Smith was teaching Adam-God, let alone the same version as Brigham, but the evidence is there that he may have been. 1
Hamilton Porter Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 19 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: "Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages, according to Abraham's record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator." (TPJS, p. 190) “He [Adam] had dominion given him over every living creature.” Who else but God has dominion over every living creature? I think he probably did teach Adam-God, but not for the silly reasons you cited. Are you aware in Genesis God told Adam to exercise dominion over every creature? I also don't give a crap whether he taught it or not. Edited February 18, 2023 by Hamilton Porter -1
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 18, 2023 Author Posted February 18, 2023 28 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said: I think he probably did teach Adam-God, but not for the silly reasons you cited. Why is the evidence I cited silly? 29 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said: Are you aware in Genesis God told Adam to exercise dominion over every creature? Yes, of course. And in the endowment Elohim and Jehovah made Adam "Lord over the whole earth and all things on the face there of." (This line was removed in 2019) 33 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said: I also don't give a crap whether he taught it or not. Why not?
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 18, 2023 Author Posted February 18, 2023 8 hours ago, OGHoosier said: Given the very separate depictions of Adam and the Father in the temple endowment The endowment doesn’t refer to Elohim as Heavenly Father. 8 hours ago, OGHoosier said: John Taylor canonized the non-Adam-God Book of Moses I don’t consider the Book of Moses to be any more "non-Adam-God" than the standard Genesis. In fact I think it fits better with Adam-God. 8 hours ago, OGHoosier said: Wilford Woodruff authorized Joseph F. Smith to reject Adam-God once and for all. Do you have a reference for this?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 18, 2023 Posted February 18, 2023 9 hours ago, OGHoosier said: Again, this scattershot methodology of taking a phrase or a concept which Brigham Young uses to teach Adam-God, seeing Joseph Smith use it in a different context, and taking it as a "veiled hint" at Adam-God, is utterly unconvincing. Isn’t this a time honored tradition for reinterpreting scripture? Just look what Christians did to find Jesus in the Old Testament.
Recommended Posts