Did Joseph Smith teach Adam-God?

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 minute ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

This line was changed slightly in the Manuscript History and later in the published Documented History of the Church. 

These Angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-c-1-2-november-1838-31-july-1842/551

Was this change an error or was it correcting a previous error in the record? 
 

What does the title archangel mean? 

There are also multiple accounts in the scriptures of the Angel of the LORD appearing to someone and then being referred to as God Himself. Examples include the appearance to Moses in the burning bush, the appearance to Gideon, the appearance to Samson's parents, and the freeing of Abraham from the altar in Egypt. 

Actually, JS prepared the written notes for that sermon that says Adam is under the direction of Christ. It’s one of the few sermons we have written notes from JS on because he had someone else deliver it. Typically, we only have someone else’s notes they wrote while listening or after hearing JS’ sermons. That manuscript your linking too was put together in 1845 after JS’ death so he wasn’t involved with the change. It would be interesting to know what precipitated that change.

On archangel, it would be interesting of JS used that title “Angel of the Lord” in his scriptures or writing, so that’s worth looking at.

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree.  I see no evidence that Joseph understood Adam as Heavenly Father prior to the 1840s.

He did understand that Adam:

1. Was the same being as Michael and the Ancient of Days.
2. That Adam presides over the entire human family.
3. That Adam is actually the head of all dispensations and presides over this creation because:

• Each time priesthood is sent from heaven it's by Adam's authority
• All seven grand dispensations will be turned over/sealed to him at Adam Ondi Ahman
• That he will be the one to bestow Christ's inheritance (ie the family of man) upon the Savior while retaining his position as head of the family

Given these teachings from his actual record it's not hard to see how he may have moved to Adam God a couple of years later.  All the elements are in his recorded teachings except the two or three main ones.  And those exist as hearsay.

I see what you’re saying. It’s not out of the question. I’m still going with unlikely. Even in the King Follett sermon at the end of JS’ life, in the big reveal, JS says God is a man like Adam, and Adam was created in his image. Then later JS shows how Christ is becoming like God. The sermon assumes a typical understanding of the godhead with Adam subservient to Christ or out of the picture. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Actually, JS prepared the written notes for that sermon that says Adam is under the direction of Christ. It’s one of the few sermons we have written notes from JS on because he had someone else deliver it. Typically, we only have someone else’s notes they wrote while listening or after hearing JS’ sermons.

I wasn’t aware that Joseph didn’t deliver this sermon himself and instead dictated it and had someone else give it. Do you have a reference for this by any chance?

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

That manuscript your linking too was put together in 1845 after JS’ death so he wasn’t involved with the change. It would be interesting to know what precipitated that change.

I believe that it was begun while he was still alive, but not finished until his death. I believe the section we’re discussing was edited after his death, though. I would have to double check, but I believe that Willard Richards was one of the editors. 

I agree that it would be interesting to know exactly why it was changed. 

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

On archangel, it would be interesting of JS used that title “Angel of the Lord” in his scriptures or writing, so that’s worth looking at.

He uses it in the JST of the Bible the same way it is used in the KJV. The angel of the Lord’s presence is also mentioned in D&C 133 and in Abraham 1.

15 And as they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life, behold, I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God, and the Lord hearkened and heard, and he filled me with the vision of the Almighty, and the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately unloosed my bands;
16 And his voice was unto me: Abraham, Abraham, behold, my name is Jehovah, and I have heard thee, and have come down to deliver thee, and to take thee away from thy father’s house, and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange land which thou knowest not of;

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I wasn’t aware that Joseph didn’t deliver this sermon himself and instead dictated it and had someone else give it. Do you have a reference for this by any chance?

I believe that it was begun while he was still alive, but not finished until his death. I believe the section we’re discussing was edited after his death, though. I would have to double check, but I believe that Willard Richards was one of the editors. 

I agree that it would be interesting to know exactly why it was changed. 

He uses it in the JST of the Bible the same way it is used in the KJV. The angel of the Lord’s presence is also mentioned in D&C 133 and in Abraham 1.

15 And as they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life, behold, I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God, and the Lord hearkened and heard, and he filled me with the vision of the Almighty, and the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately unloosed my bands;
16 And his voice was unto me: Abraham, Abraham, behold, my name is Jehovah, and I have heard thee, and have come down to deliver thee, and to take thee away from thy father’s house, and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange land which thou knowest not of;

On the dictated speech, see footnote one here: http://boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1840/5Oct40.html

Apparently, it’s the only known dictated sermon, and its dictation was done in the form of revelation. Pretty interesting stuff.

I’ll get back to you on the archangel stuff.

[Benjamin Seeker]

I looked into JS use of the word archangel and didn’t come up with anything enlightening. It seems that JS uses that title just for Adam/Michael. I didn’t really find anything on JS’s use of the phrase angel of the lord, which doesn’t really inform the discussion much anyways.
 

Really, that 1839 sermon clearly has Christ above Adam for the reasons I already said. It lays out Adam as the first one with keys given to him and Noah as second in command, leaving Christ only the superior position above Adam, which JS confirms later in that same sermon with a quote we previously mentioned: Christ is the great high priest, Adam next.

[Pyreaux]

Reminds me of the Jehovah's Witness' Michael-Jesus theory. My prime example of how Sola Scriptura and believing scripture interprets itself is folly, JWs (in rejection of non-Bible info of others) there is only one called an "archangel" or chief angel in the Bible, Michael (Jude 9), so when Jesus descends from heaven, he will shout with "the voice of the archangel", leading an angel army (1 Thessalonians 4:16). Therefore, Jesus is Michael (He who is like God). (Except every Jew knows the Biblical Gabriel and Raphiel are archangels too...)

[Dario_M]

On 3/11/2023 at 6:23 PM, CA Steve said:

Dario,

For what it is worth, many of the people posting here were also missionaries. I was and I can tell you that most missionaries really are not well informed about the doctrine and history of the church. I know I wasn't. 

 

Okat fine than. Fair enoungh. If you really find that then it must be true then isn't it??? I am tired to talk against you. 😴

Edited March 12, 2023 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

16 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Officially, in the Church, Adam is not God, you are doing well for standing up as the voice of orthodoxy. As a new convert, it will serve you well and keep you safe from possible heresy. The Prophet, your bishop, every missionary and maybe your entire ward will agree with you.

What we are doing is trying to understand the origin and meaning of the theory. Doing so makes the issue complicated, sometimes we sound crazy and incoherent. We consider, what is an "Adam"? What is a "god"? Is every human an "Adam"? Is every exalted human a "god" of sorts? Is God a human and when was that? Before the creation of earth or after? Asking these questions alter our perception of the issue and expands our understanding. Each time Grug says Adam is God, he knows he's flirting with heresy, he's just trying to understand the truth, which is a noble pursuit. He knows he could be completely correct and still be deemed a heretic by the church and all his peers.

It is wise for you to ignore him, even if we continue to engage with him. I am proud that you are standing for truth as you know and understand it. Sometimes it can be a better quality than to adopt our unskillful curiosity that could lead us astray, if we allowed it. Since it is a heresy in the church, no matter right or wrong, God will more likely punish us than you, God could probably end up giving Grug 1 point and a pat on the back for being clever, -1 point for not following the modern Prophet. Perhaps knowledge will have to be its own reward for his effort.

Yes okay i understand your point now. Well guys ....I would say...carry on then. I will not replay further in this topic too (to make Neaderthal happy) and move on to the next topic. 

[Dario_M]

21 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Dario,

For what it is worth, many of the people posting here were also missionaries. I was and I can tell you that most missionaries really are not well informed about the doctrine and history of the church. I know I wasn't. 

 

Okay if you guys really believe that then it must be true then. Maybe i have relyed to much on my missionaries i guess. Stupid of me. But i have no othder person to talk to. My freaking Bishop does't even speak English that well.

And he is the one i would go to in case i have problems. Anny idea how lonely that makes me. Plus i stilll miss a lot of docrtine and info still.  My bishop would be able to tell me those.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Dario_M

[Grug the Neanderthal]

15 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Hey Grug, I owe you a better response. Here is an important discourse from JS that will help us move the conversation forward. This is from the site boap.org that is an awesome resource for all of the different notes people took on JS’ discourses.

 

Instructions delivered sometime in July 1839 

 

Source: Willard Richards Pocket Companion, probably copied in part from notes of John Taylor. The sermon was widely copied in England. See, for example, Samuel W. Richards notebook, MS 1841, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, UT.

 

Adam is Michael

 

The Priesthood was.

¶ first given to Adam: he obtained 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 is Michael, the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures,--

 

Noah is Gabriel

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. 

 

Eschatological Meeting

¶ 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 great 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 deliverd to him as holding the Keys of the Universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.

/end cut and paste.

The first part of the sermon puts Adam at the head and Noah second. Then it goes into the big meeting where Adam gives his stewardship to Christ. You mentioned it doesn’t say that Adam returns the keys which is true, but the word stewardship does indicate that it was something given to him in the first place.

So, where does Christ fit in with Adam first and Noah second? Is Christ third? I think the obvious answer is Christ is above Adam in JS’ understanding, and Adam is returning his stewardship.

I think that your interpretation is reasonable. This is definitely the mainstream interpretation.

A couple of counterpoints:

1) Joseph Smith didn’t say that Adam received the keys of the universe from Jesus Christ. According to Adam-God, Adam would have received these keys from his Father and Grandfather. 

There’s also the the statement by Joseph Smith from the King Follett discourse about God the Father giving his kingdom to his son, Jesus Christ, and then taking a higher kingdom. 

It doesn’t make any sense to me that if Adam isn’t God the Father that he would have the keys of the universe in the first place. Over this world only, sure, but over the entire universe, no. Nor does it make any sense that he would deliver these keys up to Christ? Why would Adam be losing authority in the great council at Adam-ondi-Ahman?

Joseph Smith also states that Adam cannot receive a fullness until Christ shall present his kingdom to the Father. Which clearly suggests that Adam is gaining authority, not losing it. 

2) The endowment doesn’t ever identify Elohim as God the Father or Jehovah as Jesus Christ. It only identifies Michael as Adam. I understand why you (and pretty much every endowed member) assume this, but it’s never actually stated. 

3) There are several statements by Joseph Smith that appear to have Adam higher in authority than Christ, too. So which do we go with? 

4) The issue with Noah/Gabriel is more complicated. On the surface it does appear to be problematic for Adam-God. But if we dig a little bit deeper, we find that this isn’t necessarily problematic. 

For one thing Joseph’s understanding was undoubtedly incomplete in 1839. He would have learned more over the next 5 years. 

The scriptures and statements by Joseph Smith on the identity and mission of Gabriel are a bit puzzling. For example, in D&C 27, Joseph Smith identifies Gabriel as Elias who will restore all things. 

6 And also with Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days;
7 And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias;

But then in D&C 77 he identifies Elias who will restore all things as John the Revelator. 

Then there’s also this statement by Joseph Smith about Adam and Gabriel:

"These men held keys, first on earth, & then in Heaven."

What do you think this means? You already acknowledged that Adam held keys prior to coming to this earth. So what does it mean that these men held keys FIRST on earth and then in heaven?

Wouldn’t this require them to have held keys on a previous earth first? 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

On the dictated speech, see footnote one here: http://boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1840/5Oct40.html

Apparently, it’s the only known dictated sermon, and its dictation was done in the form of revelation. Pretty interesting stuff.

Very interesting. So this begs a few questions:

1) Why did Joseph Smith have someone else read this, instead of delivering it himself? 

2) Would Joseph Smith have made any edits to the text later? Editing the wording of revelations later was a common practice of his. He did it all the all the time. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I looked into JS use of the word archangel and didn’t come up with anything enlightening. It seems that JS uses that title just for Adam/Michael.

As far as I’m aware, you are correct that Joseph Smith uses the title archangel exclusively for Adam/Michael. 

In my mind the title means something like, "head of the angels” “or "head angel." Which could easily be referring to God the Father or alternatively an angel he placed in charge of the others.

What is an angel?

D&C 129

1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—
2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.

Obviously God the Father would be an angel or personage with a resurrected body of flesh and bones, like Jesus following his resurrection. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I didn’t really find anything on JS’s use of the phrase angel of the lord, which doesn’t really inform the discussion much anyways.

Check this out:

Exodus 3

2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

JST Exodus 3

2 And again, the presence of the LORD appeared unto him, in a flame of fire in the midst of a bush; and he looked; and behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not consumed.

4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

Abraham 1

15 And as they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life, behold, I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God, and the Lord hearkened and heard, and he filled me with the vision of the Almighty, and the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately unloosed my bands;
16 And his voice was unto me: Abraham, Abraham, behold, my name is Jehovah, and I have heard thee, and have come down to deliver thee, and to take thee away from thy father’s house, and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange land which thou knowest not of;

[Grug the Neanderthal]

16 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I don’t have a great guess for what JS intended in terms of Adam’s relationship with the Holy Ghost. But Adam as third in command makes more sense with everything else JS taught.

I get your logic, I just don’t think it makes any sense for Adam to be the Holy Ghost in the Godhead. I think it makes far more sense for him to be the Father. 

16 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The 1st verse in the 2nd chapter of the book of Moses, points in that same direction. It’s says that God created everything through his Only Begotten. If you use that to interpret the endowment you again end up with God the Father telling Christ to go do things and Adam assisting.

I get the logic here as well.

But according to the King Follett discourse, God the Father is an exalted man who would have lived on an earth governed by his Heavenly Father and his Heavenly Father’s only begotten son. 

This same pattern has been in place for countless worlds throughout the eternities. 

[CA Steve]

4 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Okay if you guys really believe that then it must be true then. Maybe i have relyed to much on my missionaries i guess. Stupid of me. But i have no othder person to talk to. My freaking Bishop does't even speak English that well.

And he is the one i would go to in case i have problems. Anny idea hoe lonely that makes me. Plus i stilll miss a lot of docrtine and info still.  My bishop would be able to tell me those.

Dario,

You are reading more into my comment than I said. I am only warning you that young missionaries might not be very well informed about the church. I have spent a lifetime studying it and I do not consider myself that well informed. You need to give yourself time to learn about it.

I do not believe Adam/ God to be true.
It was considered doctrine at one time by people who led the church, like Brigham Young. The discussion here is about whether or not it is still true. Current leadership has disavowed it and would excommunicate anyone who publicly taught it as church doctrine.

 

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Dario,

You are reading more into my comment than I said. I am only warning you that young missionaries might not be very well informed about the church. I have spent a lifetime studying it and I do not consider myself that well informed. You need to give yourself time to learn about it.

Yes but it would be nice if my Bishop or Stake president would help me with that. Here in Miratejo Portugal. The name of our chappel is AlmadaChappel btw. While the chappel is here in Miratejo, not in Almada. It really makes no sense. Why is the name not MiratejoChappel you know.. ?? 🤡

But bad choices are no exception here anyway. With names or other thinks The older members of my church doen't wanna help me. Because they are to bussy i guess. 

 

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I do not believe Adam/ God to be true.

Pfff no kidding right. But there walks some Neanderthal here on this website that thinks differently about that matter. 

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

It was considered doctrine at one time by people who led the church, like Brigham Young. The discussion here is about whether or not it is still true. Current leadership has disavowed it and would excommunicate anyone who publicly taught it as church doctrine.

 

Aaaawh good. That's nice to read. Then i whas right indeed. 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Dario_M

[webbles]

6 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I get your logic, I just don’t think it makes any sense for Adam to be the Holy Ghost in the Godhead. I think it makes far more sense for him to be the Father. 

I get the logic here as well.

But according to the King Follett discourse, God the Father is an exalted man who would have lived on an earth governed by his Heavenly Father and his Heavenly Father’s only begotten son. 

This same pattern has been in place for countless worlds throughout the eternities. 

Maybe I'm misremembering but I don't think the King Follett discourse says anything about the God the Father's mortal life except that he had one.  Saying he lived on a planet governed by His Father feels like reading more into the text than what was actually said.

Edited March 12, 2023 by webbles

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, webbles said:

 the King Follett suicide discourse 

??

Typo?

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Okay if you guys really believe that then it must be true then. Maybe i have relyed to much on my missionaries i guess. Stupid of me. But i have no othder person to talk to. My freaking Bishop does't even speak English that well.

And he is the one i would go to in case i have problems. Anny idea how lonely that makes me. Plus i stilll miss a lot of docrtine and info still.  My bishop would be able to tell me those.

Be like I was for 40 years, not know all the church history on doctrine, get involved and serve in your ward either with a calling or ministering. Socialize and build friendships, because according to a scripture out there somewhere that's what the Lord wants for people who are in a religion or congregating together. It helps you build relationships in order to serve one another. My inactivity now, doesn't allow much serving built in and if I want to serve I have to go out and find organizations or find strangers in my neighborhood or community and help those in need. The church provides the built in community, maybe start there? Wasn't Jesus Christ all over this? He wasn't pleased with the silly rule making some leaders try to put people under. He was in the department of breaking silly rules that don't do anything other than being detrimental and burdensome.  And He even says this in scripture, now if I could find the particular one that would be nice. Oh found it:

“Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:29-30).

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I get your logic, I just don’t think it makes any sense for Adam to be the Holy Ghost in the Godhead. I think it makes far more sense for him to be the Father. 

I get the logic here as well.

But according to the King Follett discourse, God the Father is an exalted man who would have lived on an earth governed by his Heavenly Father and his Heavenly Father’s only begotten son. 

This same pattern has been in place for countless worlds throughout the eternities. 

This has been taught, anyone that says different is gaslighting, but just like the temple changes, this apparently can be changed as well, we are a living prophet church Grug.

[Dario_M]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Be like I was for 40 years, not know all the church history on doctrine, get involved and serve in your ward either with a calling or ministering. Socialize and build friendships, because according to a scripture out there somewhere that's what the Lord wants for people who are in a religion or congregating together. It helps you build relationships in order to serve one another. My inactivity now, doesn't allow much serving built in and if I want to serve I have to go out and find organizations or find strangers in my neighborhood or community and help those in need. The church provides the built in community, maybe start there? Wasn't Jesus Christ all over this? He wasn't pleased with the silly rule making some leaders try to put people under. He was in the department of breaking silly rules that don't do anything other than being detrimental and burdensome.  And He even says this in scripture, now if I could find the particular one that would be nice. Oh found it:

“Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:29-30).

Woow that last qoute is a beautifull one i find. That whas deep. 🥰🌈🌈🌈

For the rest i still can not serve in my ward because i still don't have the priesterhood. But i consider to receive the Priesterhood about ...a few weeks or so. 

Friendships are difficult to build here. Portugues people are not that friendly. At least not around this area they are not. 😭 I'm now here nearly for a half year and still have no single friend. 

Oh is that so?? But why is that? You don't go to church anymore. Sorry that i am feeling so free to ask all those questions btw... ☺

 

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This has been taught, anyone that says different is gaslighting, but just like the temple changes, this apparently can be changed as well, we are a living prophet church Grug.

Changing a teaching doesn't alter reality.  It really doesn't matter who teaches what.  It only matters what is.

Just because the current teachings say one thing and the previous teachings said something else it doesn't impact how things actually are.

Either or neither could be correct.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Woow that last qoute is a beautifull one i find. That whas deep. 🥰🌈🌈🌈

For the rest i still can not serve in my ward because i still don't have the priesterhood. But i consider to receive the Priesterhood about ...a few weeks or so. 

Friendships are difficult to build here. Portugues people are not that friendly. At least not around this area they are not. 😭 I'm now here nearly for a half year and still have no single friend. 

Oh is that so?? But why is that? You don't go to church anymore. Sorry that i am feeling so free to ask all those questions btw... ☺

 

Had a faith crisis several years ago, but didn't quit going until a move in 2018, went to my bishop to tell him what I had been going through after finding out Joseph Smith lived polygamy because I hadn't been taught it and that sent me spiraling with other church history I hadn't known about and that made the bishop suspect that I may be a doubt germ and the ward basically leaves me alone and at first had ministering sisters but no visits, I had one phone call but she had the wrong ward member or never followed up, I'd love to have a phone call and I told that to the Relief Society president. But then I had a ministering couple that lived across the street and the woman would never speak to me but have her husband drop off store bought treats, well I felt guilty that they were spending money so I took myself off the ministering list. And the bishop hasn't ever followed up with me about my crisis, so I figure they think I'm a doubt germ and they'd rather I not attend, of course it's a big guess. 

So I'm open to attending but not really my ward and would like to attend some church but then covid hit and I watched it on Zoom and that worked well, but now I'm just dormant and get my ward feel on this board.

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Had a faith crisis several years ago, but didn't quit going until a move in 2018, went to my bishop to tell him what I had been going through after finding out Joseph Smith lived polygamy

That must have been something. I know that a lot of people have left the church after that news whas comming out about Joseph and his several wives. 🤪

Yeah yeah... this shows again that at the end of the day, nobody is perfect. Or a saint. We are all humans with our mistakes.

Allthough.. i do have some doubts about him and that he really had several polygamy's relationships. I mean..how can we know this for sure after 200 years. Where is the evidence that he really did that? A lot of people didn't liked him at that time. They could easily have spread lies about Smith to make him look bad. 

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

because I hadn't been taught it and that sent me spiraling with other church history I hadn't known about and that made the bishop suspect that I may be a doubt germ and the ward basically leaves me alone and at first had ministering sisters but no visits, I had one phone call but she had the wrong ward member or never followed up, I'd love to have a phone call and I told that to the Relief Society president. But then I had a ministering couple that lived across the street and the woman would never speak to me but have her husband drop off store bought treats, well I felt guilty that they were spending money so I took myself off the ministering list. And the bishop hasn't ever followed up with me about my crisis, so I figure they think I'm a doubt germ and they'd rather I not attend, of course it's a big guess. 

Yeah yeah okay i see. 

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

So I'm open to attending but not really my ward and would like to attend some church but then covid hit and I watched it on Zoom and that worked well, but now I'm just dormant and get my ward feel on this board.

On zoom you can also follow it perfectly indeed. 😉

That's true. And you know what...looking at the church service on zoom is as good as going to church. At the end of the day it's all the same i find. 💗✝️

Edited March 12, 2023 by Dario_M

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

As far as I’m aware, you are correct that Joseph Smith uses the title archangel exclusively for Adam/Michael. 

In my mind the title means something like, "head of the angels” “or "head angel." Which could easily be referring to God the Father or alternatively an angel he placed in charge of the others.

What is an angel?

D&C 129

1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—
2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.

Obviously God the Father would be an angel or personage with a resurrected body of flesh and bones, like Jesus following his resurrection. 

But D&C 129 is not defining the word "angel", rather it is explaining the different kinds of beings in heaven, although in the context of that revelation it uses the word "angel" to refer to the resurrected personages.   The Hebrew and Greek word translated as "angel" simply means messenger.  A messenger ["angel"] from God can even be a mortal human (scripture has several examples of this).  Verse 4 says, "When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God", it is simply using the term for angel again. 

So God the Father would not be an "angel" just by virtue of him having a resurrected body of flesh and bones, that's faulty logic.  In order for God the Father to be an "angel" he would need to be a representative and messenger of someone else.