Gaia

GAIA: Hello and WElcome, Kiwibabee -- Yes, while there is little official doctrine to address that point i think many LDS do feel that there is some truth to the idea that (major) relationships predate mortality, and furthermore, i think that is one of the more attractive elements of LDS thought, for many investigators.... In fact, it may interest some here to know that -- while i must again emphasize it is NOT in any way official doctrine -- Joseph Smith is reputed to have told Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (one of his polygamous wives): “I was his before I came here and he said all the Devils in hell should never get me from him...” (See "Mormon Polygamy: A History" by (LDS Historian) Richard S. Van Wagoner, and "In Sacred Lonliness" by Todd Compton.) That certainly suggests that at least some relationships had their origins in pre-mortality, pre-earth. However, i do think we may need to beware taking that idea quite as far as popular Mormon fiction (ala "Saturday's Warrior" and "My Turn on Earth") tend to -- Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Reminds me of Ann Landers' interesting version: "TIme wounds all Heels ....." But seriously, i think i might be tempted to disagree, a bit -- time doesn't do much by itself; Rather, i think it's how you SPEND that time that helps heal, or not heal......

I'm curious what you mean by the trap that some single moms fall into in using their oldest or "boy" as surrogate partners. I'm not talking in the sexual way of course but curious as to what you mean. GAIA: Hi Pam --- What i meant was, It becomes a little too easy to rely (especially on the oldest boy, but sometimes on a girl) for the emotional support that one is missing, with no adult partner..... It can begin very innocenly, sharing your thoughts and feelings, and pretty soon, you've made the child your "surrogate" partner, emotionally. They begin feeling like they have to "cheer up mom" or "make mom feel better" or "be the man of the house" -- unfortunately, some boys are even encouraged to feel this way -- and it is ultimately NOT healthy for them. Kids need to be kids, not surrogate adult partners or caretakers for their parents. I hope that helped explain -- Let me know. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi Rebecca -- One of the big problems many people run into, is that such problems are not understood to be MEDICAL, they're assumed to be problems with (lack of) faith, obedience to the gospel, etc. The truth -- which you need to realize, too -- is that depression is chiefly a BIOCHEMICAL problem in the body. It has little if anything to do with faithfulness, with living the gospel, or any of the many other erroneous assumptions many people make about it. And the more you realize and internalize this truth, the easier it will be for you to explain it to others, and to shrug off those ignorant remarks that might (unfortunately and occasionally) be made. There are support groups, especially in most larger cities, or sometimes affiliated with local hospitals or medical centers, that you might check into. Also check into the NIMH -- National INstitute of Mental Health -- for more suggestions and referrals -- Depression - www.nimh.nih.gov/healthinformation/depressionmenu.cfm I would respectfully advise you to be careful and discrete about who you discuss this with -- there are still a lot of medieval attitudes about any sort of mental illness. Besides, now that you've found some good meds that are working for you, why would you need to discuss it much, especially with anyone outside your immediate family or those with whom you interact regularly and closely? Also, in spiritual terms: Remember that Paul is reputed to have suffered some weakness which he referred to several times (see for example, 2 Corinthians 12:9). There's been some discussion about just what that weakness might have been, but it does give an example that demonstrates one does not necessarily loose all human problems just because of faith or righteousess. Congrats on being diagnosed and treated -- that's a big part of the battle. Stay in close contact with your doctor, and keep him informed on your progress and especially, any problems. Good luck and Blessings -- ~Gaia Here are some more good resouces, hope they're helpful to you: 1. A good article to help assess the degree of depression a person may be dealing with is David G. Weight, "Why Is My Wife (Or Husband) Depressed?" Ensign, March 1990, 27-29. 2. Ezra Taft Benson, "Do Not Despair," Ensign, October 1986, 2–5 3. See, for example, Severe Depressive Disorders, ed. Leon Grunhaus and John F. Greden (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, 1994), 23, 111–35, 251; Depression and the Social Environment, ed. Philippe Cappeliez and Robert J. Flynn (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993), 262; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1994), 340–42; Depression Is a Treatable Illness (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1993); Depression in Primary Care: Detection, Diagnosis, and Treatment (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1993). 4. Allen E. Bergin, I. Reed Payne, Paul H. Jenkins, and Marie Cornwall, "Religion and Mental Health: Mormons and Other Groups," Contemporary Mormonism: Social Science Perspectives, ed. Marie Cornwall, Tim B. Eaton, and Lawrence A. Young (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 142–43, 145. 5. Neal Maxwell, Notwithstanding My Weakness (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 9–11. 6. Marian S. Bergin, "It Takes More Than Love," Ensign, August 1990, 21; emphasis added.. 7. Ann N. Madsen, "Pray with All Energy of Heart," this volume, 102. 8. Dawn Hall Anderson, Susette Fletcher Green, and Dlora Hall Dalton, eds., Clothed with Charity: Talks from the 1996 Women’s Conference [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1997], 254.)

I don't know the answer to this question because I don't know how these children lived after they were married to him. They positively could have suffered much anguish. GAIA: Some of them reported being glad they had been involved with Joseph, but having lived very lonely, and utimately (i think) rather sad lives. I would also like to say that while there are many obvious problems with polygamy, there were also some real blessings and benefits that are not often discussed, which need to be acknowledged. For example, polygamy enabled many women to leave their children and homes in the care of their "Sister Wives", and obtain education and training they would not otherwise have been able to get, and they became among the first female doctors, lawyers, etc in the country. Many of their stories can be found in the following (LDS) books: - A WOMAN'S VIEW: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History - Edited with an Introductory Essay by Jeni Broberg Holzapfel & Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Copyright 1997 by Religious Studies Center Brigham Young University - "Daughters of Light" by Carol Lynn Pearson - "Women of Covenant: The Story of Relief Society" by Jill Mulvay Derr, Janath Russell Cannon, Maureen Ursenbach Beecher - "Women of MOrmondom" by Edward Tullidge - "Women's Voices: An Untold History of the LDS, 1830-1900" by Kenneth W. Godfrey, Audrey M. Godfrey, Jill Mulvay Derr On polygamy, a good (LDS) resource is "Mormon Polygamy: A History" - by (LDS Historian) Richard S. Van Wagoner. And of course, the most often suggested books on the specific topic of polyandrous marriages: - "In Sacred Lonliness" by Todd Compton -- Also, here is Compton's response to his critics: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/rev.html ~Gaia

GAIA: Dear Moksha, thank you so much for your Christian attitude; but please don't give it another thought. Some folks talk the talk -- or are so busy debating that they completely forget the basic principles they were supposedly "defending" -- others (like you and the others who emailed me) walk the walk, and i understand that. But all of you who -- like Moksha -- expressed your thoughtfulness, respect and fair-mindedness -- thank you, sincerely Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hello Anthony -- I'm sorry my statements troubled you. Please understand that A-Train is quite right; my comments in NO way indicated any sort of "official" position, policy or doctrine of the Church, whatsoever; they were intended as information for those interested in matters of historical curiosity (especially the life and times of Joseph Smith) only, NOT in any way to indicate Church policy or doctrine. I hope that clarifies things for you; and i deeply apologise for any confusion there might have been -- Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi Antispatula -- Yes, there are some folks who discover such things and unfortunately, it really throws them. I think there are seveal things to keep in mind: First, the first couple in whose marriage Joseph Smith officiated, was Lydia (Goldthwaite) Knight, and (Bishop) Newel Knight. Newell had been a Bishop in MIssouri during the dreadful persecutions, during which his first wife died; he and Lydia met when she "gathered" to Nauvoo, shortly after converting to the Church. Theirs is a really sweet love story, i encourage you to check it out someday..... At any rate, during this ceremony, Joseph is said to have made some interesting observations. Lydia had been deserted by her previous (very abusive!) husband, and had never been able to find him to obtain a legal divorce, so there was some concern about the legalilties of this second marriage. Joseph evidently tried to comfort the young couple by telling them that civil marriages might not necesarily be honored by God -- especially if the marriage didn't "take"; and that he was being given instruction in the matter of marraiges, and would yet reveal many important truths -- this may have been an intimation of the princple of Celestial Marraige that was to come. Secondly -- while we're often reminded about how women are supposed to "obey" their husbands (in righteousness), Joseph is reputed to have taught that women have a RIGHT to expect to be FULFILLED by their husbands -- and if those husbands are unable to do so, the wives may have the right to seek out another husband of higher priesthood, who WOULD so fulfill them -- Given by President Brigham Young in the Tabernacle in Great Salt Lake City Oct. 8th 1861. A. M. (Please note, It's late, and while i've tried, i've not yet been able to verify this with my GospeLink program; i advise anyone to investigate further before taking this quote as fact): "The second way in which and his priesthood, I have not revealed, except to few persons in this Church, and a few have received it from Joseph the prophet as well as myself. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the preisthood [sic] with higher power and authority than her husband , and he is disposed to take her he can do so" Blessings -- ~Gaia

Hi Again, JohnDoe -- Your argument pretty much consists of, "Don't confuse me with any facts, my mind is made up." So hey, Good luck with that! B) Blessings -- ~Gaia GAIA: Hi Pam -- Actually, i tried to cut them down to several posts of more reasonable size, but somehow the system automatically combined all of them into one big mess again! LOL -- Sorry 'bout that. Try reading just one bit at a time/ sitting, see if that helps? ~Gaia

Again, how does this imply that Adam is Eloheim? GAIA: First, the phrase "brought a wife with him" implies that he had received the Priesthood and the Principle of (Celestial) Marriage, in which case he'd have received both the "Preparatory" and the "Everlasting" Gospel --in that "Other" world, where he had successfully passed his Mortal probationary period. THAT (according to D&C 132) is Exalted, Celestialized existence; and the only people we know of who were "celestial" and "exalted" at the formation of the world were HF and HM -- and THEIR Parents . It is widely known and proclaimed that LDS believe that the Father took on a physical body just the same as did the Saviour and as did we, this provides no evidence that when Eloheim took upon himself the course material of a physical body, he became the Adam we read of in Genesis. Now I acknowledge the fact that he said THIS earth, but if we were to conform to this word so strictly to say that the Father obtained his physical body on this planet, then we would have to also deny the notion so popular among the 'Adam-God-Theorists' that he obtained that body on another sphere and then came here, the same notion you represent in your first quote there. GAIA: No, i think you're misunderstanding the point here. He (Adam) came here with a CELESTIALIZED, EXALTED body -- Now, you only get one of those AFTER successfully enduring a Mortal probationary period -- obeying the Gospel, enduring to the End, and getting Justified, Sanctified and Exalted (ie, D&C 132) -- That CELESTIALIZED body had to BECOME mortal AGAIN, and to achieve that, he had to "partak[e] of the course material that composed this earth, until His (Celestialized, Exalted) system was charged with it (ie, he "coarse material of the earth)." THEN he (or rather, his wife Eve) could give physical birth to what we're told in other quotes, were THEIR SPIRIT CHILDREN. It is acknowledged that Adam, in the garden, took upon himself the viel and forgot all of his previous existance. This is not a forgotten or hidden doctrine, but is the subject of Sunday School lessons and missionary discussions. How are we to somehow suppose that his great knowledge which he forgot somehow implies he was Eloheim? This is not indicated in this quote. GAIA: With all due respect, i think you're missing an important hint, here: Brigham certainly knew what all Sunday School lessons and missionary discussions taught -- WHY would he say that "there may be some minds which could grasp some things pertaining to it, but others could not"??? -- Because he was NOT just referring to Adam taking on the vail and forgetting what we generally think of as a "previous existence"as a Spirit son of Elohim/ HF in the Spirit World -- Instead, what Adam was "forgetting" -- the "agreement that he entered into" -- was to trade his existence as a CELESTIALIZED, EXALTED MAN OF HOLINESS in the Celestial Kingdom, for that of a "corruptible being" -- and that he therefore had to greatly "reduce" himself -- iow, just the opposite of what Paul said regarding "corruption putting on INcorruption" -- HOw do you think that would feel? GAIA: I suppose that is possible, but again, i just don't think it "fits" in the context of all the other quotes. I understand that you may, and that's your perfect right . . . . But can YOU see that others might reasonably, honorably disagree with YOUR interpretation? GAIA: Please remember that I don't "assert" anything, A-Train. I never have. I'm saying -- as i have all along -- that this teaching and these quotes can be interpreted or understood as saying A. that just as a single being can, at one moment, fill the Office of Bishop, and at another moment or in another context, be a Home Teacher; or just as a single being could be at one moment/ context a Stake President and at another, a Temple President or Apostle -- So a single Being COULD have filled the Priesthood Office of Elohim at one moment or in one context, and at another moment or context, have filled the Office of Michael-Adam; In all these cases, They would still be "distinct characters" with distinct (and very different) roles, authority, powers, responsibilities, and obligations. We would no more pray to Adam than we would expect the HOme Teacher to run the ward, or the Stake President to dictate official doctrine. AND B. That the term "Elohim" is NOT a proper name, it is first of all, a PLURAL; second, in LDS practice, it refers to "THE GODS" -- I can present more evidence on that if you wish -- and "The Gods" can mean the pre-Mortal "Noble and Great Ones" who helped with the Creation, or those who have been Sanctified, Glorified and Exalted -- including HF and HM, as well as THEIR Heavenly Parents, and so on, back through Eternities. So, there is a GRANDFATHER -- HF's Father, who can "fill in" any position, role or Office when so required or needed; So what you're referring to as "Elohiem" in the quote, could have been a) the "NOble and Great Ones", B) the Grandfather or c) other exalted, Celestialized Beings..... That's my answer to that question. If it's not agreeable, i'm sorry, but i have no other for you. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Please consider that (as the evidence shows) i began answering questions this morning at 7:30 am, and kept it up until well past noon, trying to address the (respectful) messages that were put to me one at a time, as completely as possible. That means some get answered later, or more slowly, than others. Particularly, Those that make specific challenges, require me to do extra research and therefore require more time and effort. As i've already explained to you privately, my time on the computer (or just sitting up) is limited for a number of reasons. IOW, i'm sorry for any problems it may cause, but i'm really doing the best i can given the circumstances i have to deal with :) . OK, in Msg 136 you say: GAIA: I did "address" (at least some of) those quotes, perhaps just not the way you wanted me to. OK, let's try it again: Starting with this one: QUOTE JD 12:97 Women, if righteous, may be Eves to their own worlds someday Full Text Here (snipped for brevity) A-Train's explanation: GAIA NOW: I'm saying a number of things: 1. First, that there are some errors in MY work: For example, If you'll remember that very first post, toward the end i included a list of JD quotes with very brief -- in most cases one-line -- "explanations" of the "gist" of each of them, with a note that the JD is NOT considered official doctrine, and at the very end, an encouragement for each person to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. Those "explanations" were for my own use, i should never have included them in work presented to anybody else, and i deeply apologise, because while i knew their limitations, others could not. For another example (of MY error): I had never gone through the entire list of quotes and references, to examine each quote and reference word for word with my GospeLink, but our discussion inspired me to do so -- That's another bit of what i've been doing, when i haven't been (promptly) answering all of your questions *smile*. So i must admit that (as i've discovered during this process) some of those were misquoted (by me or the persons from whom i originally obtained them, years ago); some were mis-identified -- i couldn't even find a few of them. I don't know all the explanations for those problems. I wish i did. I do know now that i've corrected my files, made sure all the quotes "jive" with GospeLink, and deleted the errors; and i will no longer make those mistakes, so i thank you for that. 2. I'm saying that there have been errors and changes to the historical record, by those charged with recording and maintaining the Library -- some of them deliberate, some perhaps just human error. Again, i cannot know all the reasons, and would prefer not to make assumptions, especially the kind attributing questionable intentions or motives, to people or situations that i cannot know (or prove). 3. I'm saying that despite all of that, my point in quoting yet MORE material was to show that in the long run and ultimately to the discussion and issue, none of that really mattered, because there were other quotes that DID prove the points i was attempting to make -- for example -- that 'Women, if righteous, may be Eves to their own worlds someday" -- According to the Adam-God teaching by Brigham and others, Eve is an Office which involves a celestialized, exalted woman helping to create a physical world to which she goes with her exalted, celestialized husband, Michael-Adam, to effect a fall from Exaltation/ Celestialization, to open up that world to mortality, and to provide physical, mortal tabernacles for THEIR spirit children For quotes and references on that, Please see post # 138. ~Gaia

GAIA: Unfortunately, the term "cult" has pretty much come to mean, "Anything I /WE don't beleive in or practice." It's a little like the old saying: MY spirituality is "Religion", YOURS is a cult. If memory serves, a few years ago, the Cult INformation Network (i may have the name a bit confused) -- which was once a very good resource for information on various cults -- was bought out and taken over by Scientology! CULT EVALUATION FRAME: For anyone who might be interested, there is a very good "Cult Evaluation Frame" which suggests that the way to identify a cult is NOT so much based on what they beleive, but rather, on HOW they BEHAVE or Implement those beliefs -- (See http://www.celticcrow.com/bonew.html ) The Key Issues include: 1. INTERNAL CONTROL: Amount of internal political power exercised by leader(s) over members. 2. WISDOM CLAIMED by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations. 3. WISDOM CREDITED to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s). 4. DOGMA: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or "fundamentalism." 5. RECRUITING: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing. 6. FRONT GROUPS: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main goup. 7. WEALTH: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members' donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members. 8. POLITICAL POWER: Amount of external political influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members' secular votes. 9. SEXUAL MANIPULATION: of members by leader(s); amount of control (or attempted control) exercised over sexuality of members; advancement dependent upon sexual favors or specific lifestyle. 10. CENSORSHIP: Amount of control over members' access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s). 11. DROPOUT CONTROL: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts. 12. VIOLENCE: amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s). 13. PARANOIA: amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories. 14. GRIMNESS: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 15. SURRENDER OF WILL: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 16. HYPOCRISY: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate group's declared principles for political, psychological, economic, or other gain. To whatever degree the above may be found in ANY group -- it may be considered a CULT. It's also important to remember that religious are not the only type of cult(s) --- There are therapeutic, scientific, economic and other kinds of cults, as well.

Now this, you have already listed before. There is more than one way to interpret this. The trouble with this is that he doesn't explicitly say that the man who has his exaltation and his crown will have to be the Adam in this new world. Now, the man who is the Adam in this new world may have benefit of a celestial body, but this does not prove that he is the same Being that presides over this operation. GAIA: Please See "More quotes". GAIA: I think i see the difference you are suggesting, however, i would like to address a couple of things: 1. I must (respectfully) disagree -- the earth was not created "Celestialized", it was PARADISIACAL -- There's a subtle but important difference. (Articles of Faith:10.) 10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. (Articles of Faith:10.) In the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" (TPJS), Joseph said: "This earth will be rolled back into the presence of God, and crowned with celestial glory." (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976], 181.) The phrase "crowned with Celestial Glory" suggests that Celestial Glory was not something it had previously. For scriptural references to redeemed or resurrected spheres, see D&C 77:1; 130:6-9. And this is from "God, Man and the Universe" by (BYU Religion Prof Emeritus), Hyrum Andrus: To be more specific, the earth after its creation was in a paradisiacal-celestial state. This term, which combines the meaning of the two words which compose it, describes (1) the state of glory in which the earth existed and (2) the kind or degree of glory by which it was quickened in its paradisiacal state. The earth's paradisiacal state of glory has been described in the preceding paragraph. To say that the earth was in a paradisiacal-celestial state carries the added meaning that the earth was enveloped in the glory and power of the Father, or that kind and degree of glory which the scriptures refer to as being celestial. For instance, a sphere is in a telestial condition when the Holy Spirit is the basic source of the divine intelligence and power which it receives from God; it is in a terrestrial condition when the glory of Christ as the Son is its basic source of truth and light; and it is in a celestial condition when it is capable of receiving the glory and power of the Father. fn Since the earth after its creation dwelt in a paradisiacal state amid the glory and power of the Father, it was then in a paradisiacal-celestial state of glory. There are several points that support the idea that the earth was in a paradisiacal state of glory after its creation and that make clear that nature of life in that state: First, Joseph Smith said that when this earth is redeemed, it "will be rolled back into the presence of God and crowned with celestial glory." In its redeemed state, this earth will be a body of light. But a sphere that is in a paradisiacal state evidently receives its glory from a redeemed sphere or personage; and although a sphere in a paradisiacal state is enveloped in divine spiritual powers, these intelligent forces are not organized within it as a permanent part of it, but are manifest to it on a dependent principle. (Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man, and the Universe [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968], 328.) In fact, if you wouldn't mind a digression -- There is a very interesting teaching regarding that very issue -- Joseph Smith (allegedly) taught that while the Earth was created in a PARADISIACAL state -- perfect, without sin or corruption, it was NOT yet Celestialized; and in order to achieve that, it would have to go through several stages, just as human beings must -- which Eliza R Snow Smith referred to in her poem, "Address to Earth": ADDRESS TO EARTH - By Eliza R Snow Smith (pages 154-155 of her book of "Poems") Thou 0 earth wast once a glorious sphere Of noble magnitude, And didst with majesty appear among the worlds of god. But thy dimensions have been torn asunder piece by piece, and each dismember'd fragment borne abroad to distant space. When Enoch could no longer stay amid corruption here, part of thyself was borne away to form another sphere. that portion where his city stood he gain'd by right approv'd and nearer to the throne of god his planet upward moved and when the lord saw fit to hide the ten lost tribes away thou earth wast sever'd to provide the orb on which they stay and thus from time to time thy size has been diminished till thou seem'st the law of sacrifice created to fulfill. the curse of god on man was plac'd that curse thou didst partake and thou hast been by turns disgrac'd and honor'd for his sake the vilest wretches hell will claim now breathe thy atmosphere the noblest spirits heaven can name have been embodied here Jesus the lord thy surface grac'd he fell a sacrifice and now within thy cold embrace the martyr'd Joseph lies! When Satans hosts are overcome the martyr'd princely race will claim thee their celestial home the royal dwelling place. A restitution yet must come that will to thee restore by the grand law of worlds thy sum of matter heretofore. And thou 0 earth wilt leave the track thou hast been doom'd to trace the gods with shouts will bring thee back to fill thy native place. The point there is that the earth was not just automatically granted "Celestialization", it had to "merit" the Grace of Christ just as humans must obey the Gospel, in order to lay claim to that sanctifying (and celestializing) Grace. 2. OK, now to adress the second part of your point: GAIA: I think it does suggest exactly that. Who ELSE involved in the entire process of creation -- Besides Eve -- participated with a "Celestialized" Body? Do you see that this can be true in a different sense than the one that holds Adam to be Eloheim? GAIA: Hmm -- How would you feel about using the term, "Heavenly FAther" or "HF" to refer to God the FAther, rather than "Elohim/ Eloheim", since there are many who can qualify as "Elohims"? OK, let me see if i understand your point here: Are you saying that MIchael-Adam may be said to be the Father of Jesus, or for that matter, any of us, by virtue of his position in the Priesthood, and as the "Father" (ie, progenitor) of all humankind? If that's it, i can see it, and even agree with the basic idea -- but i think it's really stretching the point to use that interpretation for this quote. (But then hey, i can understand you thinking I'M "stretching" things to suggest some of the things i have! *rueful grin*) * * * A-Train, and any others reading this -- i hope you are beginning to note the difference in the tone of our exchange, here -- And i hope you don't mind my calling attention to it, but i think it may be valuable: A-Train and i are now TALKING TO each other , with consideration, giving real thought to and trying to understand each other's point of view, rather than automatically dismissing, discrediting, even demonizing each other.....Can you see what a difference this makes, in the spirit of the discussion, and how much more meaningful, intelligent, even worthwhile the discussion becomes? I think that's an important -- even crucial, difference. Thanks, A=Train. Blessings -- ~GAia

More Quotes -- and again, i have taken these directly from the LDS-owned and published GospeLink 2001 Library (See http://gospelink.com/) -- He [Adam] was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 3: 319.) Brigham Young: Now to the facts in the case; all the difference between Jesus Christ and any other man that ever lived on the earth, from the days of Adam until now, is simply this, the Father, after He had once been in the flesh, and lived as we live, obtained His exaltation, attained to thrones, gained the ascendancy over principalities and powers, and had the knowledge and power to create-to bring forth and organize the elements upon natural principles. This He did after His ascension, or His glory, or His eternity, and was actually classed with the Gods, with the beings who create, with those who have kept the celestial law while in the flesh, and again obtained their bodies. Then He was prepared to commence the work of creation, as the Scriptures teach. It is all here in the Bible; I am not telling you a word but what is contained in that book. Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth. When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between Jesus Christ and you and me. And a difference there is between our Father and us consists in that He has gained His exaltation, and has obtained eternal lives. The principle of eternal lives is an eternal existence, eternal duration, eternal exaltation. Endless are His kingdoms, endless His thrones and His dominions, and endless are His posterity; they never will cease to multiply from this time henceforth and forever. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 4: 218.) After men have got their exaltations and their crowns—have become Gods, even the sons of God—are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 6: 275.) Adam and Eve are the parents of all pertaining to the flesh, and I would not say that they are not also the parents of our spirits. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 7: 290 - 291.) Suppose a man should come here and tell you the very nature of our Father Adam—tell precisely how he was organized, his height, his proportions, the extent of his knowledge, tell you the agreement that was entered into, the amount of knowledge that he had to forget to reduce himself to the capacity of a corruptible being! Suppose this could all be told to the congregations of the Saints, what would they know about it? Very little. There may be some minds which could grasp some things pertaining to it, but others could not. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 13: 264.) I ask this question of you, mother Eves, every one of you. If you are not sanctified and prepared, you ought to be sanctifying and preparing yourselves for the blessings in store for you when it will be said of you, this is Eve. Why? Because you are the mother of all living. You might as well prepare first as last. If you wish to be Eves and mothers of human families you ought to bear the burden. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 12: 98.) When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle worlds devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. The offspring of Adam and Eve are commanded to take the rude elements, and, by the knowledge God has given, to convert them into everything required for their life, health, adornment, wealth, comfort, and consolation. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 7: 286.) Heber C KIMball: I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth—the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world, to redeem his brethren; his life was taken, his blood shed, that our sins might be remitted. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 4: 1 - 2.) Now, let's go back and review the first reference in light of these others -- again, from the LDS owned and published GospeLink version of the Journal of Discourses: Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. J8It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. J8Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 1: 51.) *Many*, many more exist; if anyone is interested, Just Let me know. ~Gaia

OK, here are some more quotes, from my copy of the JOurnal of Discourses on the GospeLink 2001 Library: After men have got their exaltations and their crowns—have become Gods, even the sons of God—are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 6: 275.) Brigham Young: "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me-- namely that Adam is our father and God--I do not know, I do not enquire, I care nothing about it. . . . 'Well', says one, 'Why was Adam called Adam?' He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker, He with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he said, 'I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state, I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or dwelling place as mine has, and where is the mystery?'" Brigham Young, 8 Jun 1873, Deseret News, 18 June 1873. "Adam is Michael the Archangel and he is the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God and Joseph taught this principle." Brigham Young, 16 Dec 1867, Wilford Woodruff Journal.

GAIA: Well, woah there, A=Train..... 1. FIRST -- There have been changes to the historical record: LDS historians have noted and presented evidence that there have been CHANGES to the historical record, even scriptures -- The Church has gone back and changed historical records, ordinances, even scriptures, to better conform to or support current policies, programs, and teachings. The officially published History of the Church also deleted evidence, introduced anachronisms, even reversed meanings in manuscript minutes and other documents which were detailed and explicit in their original form. In 1835 the Doctrine and Covenants began a policy of retroactive editing by reversing previous meanings, adding concepts and whole paragraphs to the texts of previously published revelations. Examples are available in the sources below, but here are two quick and easy ones: a. The Hymnal has been edited to remove references to doctrines that were taught by previous Church leaders, which are now considered heretical -- For just one small example, see Hymn #51: "Sons of Michael He Approaches" which originally included a reference to the now-heretical "Adam-God" doctrine, as follows: The orignal version said: "Sons of Michael, he approaches! Rise; the Eternal Father greet" -- The Current version "corrected" it to read: "Rise, the ancient father greet." b. Another example is Joseph Smith's quote taken from the original Relief Society minutes: The ORIGINAL said: "The Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood" and that he was "going to make of this Society a kingdom of Priests, as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day." (Joseph Smith statement, 30 Mar. 1842, in microfilm copies of original minutes of the Female RElief Society of Nauvoo, Joseph Smkith Collection, at the Special Collections, Harold B Lee Library, BYU, Provo, Utah. - And in: - Transcript copy in Linda King Newell papers, Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Ut. - Andrew F Ehat and Lndon W Cook, "The Words of the Joseph Smith" 110; - Jill Mulvay Derr, Janath Russell Cannon, and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, Women of Covenant, 43, 53. -- Compare with the altered version of these minutes in BH Roberts, ed. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 4:570. In printing the original minutes of the prophet's talk after his death, the official "History of the Church" omitted Joseph's first use of the word "Society" and changed the second "Society" to "Church", as follows: "going to make of this Church a kingdom of Priests, as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day" -- which changes the entire meaning of the passage. For analysis of changes in revelatory texts, see the following LDS Sources: - Melvin Joseph Peterson, "A Study of the Nature and Significance of the Changes in the Revelations as Found in a Comparison of the Book of Commandments and Subsequent Editions of the Doctrine and Covenants," MA Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1955; - Richard P Howard, "Restoration Scriptures: A Study of Their Textual Development" Independence, MO: Herald House, 1969; - Robert J Woodford, "The Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants," 3 vols, Ph.D. Diss, Brigham Young University, 1974; - Milton V Backman, Jr. "The Heavens Resound: A History of the Latter-day Saints in Ohio, 1930-1838" 214-215; - Woodford, "The Story of the Doctrine and Covenants," Ensign 14:32-39; - Woodford, "Doctrine and Covenants Editions," in Ludlow, _Encyclopedia of Mormonism_ 1:242.) 2. Secondly: That was NOT the only source supporting the idea (taught in the Adam-God doctrine) women WILL become Eves, and men Adams, and that this is in fact the nature of "Eternal LIVES" (note the plural, and see D&C 132:35) -- a. First, there is the Temple ritual itself. b. For another quick and easy example (and if you give me some time, i can find more) -- there's the poem by Eliza R Snow Smith, who said she received the teaching from her polygamous husband, Joseph Smith: "The Ultimatum of Human Life", from Poems Religious, Historical and Political, Vol. 2:8-9, 1877. Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been Subject to sorrow in a world of sin: Through long gradation he arose to be Cloth'd with the Godhead's might and majesty. And what to him in his probative sphere, Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest, or Seer? Whate'er his offices and callings were, He magnified them with assiduous care: By his obedience he obtain'd the place Of God and Father of this human race. Obedience will the same bright garland weave, As it has done for your great Mother, Eve, For all her daughters on the earth, who will All my requirements sacredly fulfill. And what to Eve, though in her mortal life, She'd been the first, the tenth, or fiftieth wife? What did she care, when in her lowest state, Whether by fools, consider'd small, or great? 'Twas all the same with her--she prov'd her worth-- She's now the Goddess and the Queen of Earth. Life's ultimatum, unto those that live As saints of God, and all my pow'rs receive; Is still the onward, upward course to tread-- To stand as Adam and as Eve, the head Of an inheritance, a new-form'd earth, And to their spirit race, give mortal birth-- Give them experience in a world like this; then lead them forth to everlasting bliss, Crown'd with salvation and eternal joy Where full perfection dwells, without alloy. Agreed, this is NOT scripture, however it does establish that this idea of men becoming Adams and women becoming Eves, certainly was taught / understood to be truth by a leading woman of the Church, and one consistently referred to as "Zion's High Priestess" throughout her life. As i said, if given time, i can provide more references from Brigham and others. ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi JohnDoe -- You're certainly entitled to read (or not read) whatever you wish -- But then -- with all due respect -- claiming that someone has "invalid theories" without bothering to actually READ those theories, let alone the evidence for them -- reveals you as someone who evidently thinks he can judge the validity of something without bothering to investigate it -- and most people would call that "bias", not (educated) opinion. *Shrug* some people are satisfied with merely knowing just enough to confirm their prejudices -- others are not. I hope you will someday understand and appreciate the difference. Until then, i do wish you'd at least be honest enough to withhold labelling something "invalid" without at least bothering to actually read the evidence presented on it -- - But i do understand, that's contrary to human nature B) . GAIA: OK -- Here ya go: Take your pick, even! 1. Brigham Young, General Conference, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. October 8th, l854, Hist.Rec. Moses said Adam was made of 'the dust of the ground,' but he did not say of WHAT ground. I say he was not made of the dust of the ground of THIS earth, but he was made of the dust of THE EARTH WHERE HE LIVED, where he honored his calling, believed in HIS Savior or elder brother, and by his faithfulness was redeemed and got a glorious RESURRECTION. ... I will tell you more: ADAM IS THE FATHER OF OUR SPIRITS. He lived upon AN earth, he did abide His creation and did honor to His calling and priesthood and obeyed HIS master or lord, and probably MANY of his wives did the same; and THEY LIVED AND DIED UPON AN AN EARTH AND THEN WERE RESURRECTED again to immortality and eternal life. 2. SCRIPTURAL ADAM-GOD REFERENCES FROM STANDARD WORKS: Jesus says to the brother of Jared: “Never have I showed myself unto man whom I created”. Did Adam see Jesus? Daniel 7:9-10; 13-14 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. ... 13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 1 Corinthians 15:24 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. DISCUSSION: In Daniel 2, who was it that set up the kingdom? God [Elohim]. In Corinthians, who shall "put down all rule"? God [the Father]. And in Daniel 7, who was it? The Ancient of Days [Adam]. Blessings, ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi Annabelli -- I'm sorry, i'm uncertain what you're talking about. I've posted references with everything i've ever quoted/ written on this site. I 've also said several times that i own (and have provided links to) the GospeLink 2001 Program -- again, see http://gospelink.com/ for more on that -- *smile* I strongly reccomend that program to anyone who is or desires to become a serious student of LDS doctrine or history -- It's worth many times what i was fortunate enough to have to pay for it, when i got it three-four years ago. * * * As for my personal religious preferences, i've already said (several times!) that i have been an endowed member of the LDS church for several decades; but that i have also studied a number of other Spiritual paths and consider myself a "Spiritual Seeker" rather than tied to any particular Path. And with all due respect, if you'll notice my pattern of replies over the last couple of weeks, you'll see that i've stopped replying to some because their accusations of "dishonesty" strike me as absurdly and revealingly hypocritical, given their penchant for ad hominems, character assasination, and misrepresentation, along with their obvious inability to discuss matters on the merits of ISSUES rather than ad hominems -- And to tell you the truth, i'm gratified to have received emails agreeing with and supporting, both my position and response to such silliness. * * * Once again, Anabelli, and for others wondering why i respond as i do: There is a huge difference between saying to someone on the one hand: "I really strongly disagree with your opinion / findings / ideas"; and on the other hand, saying "And you are bad /evil/ faithless / foolish / anti-Mormon / [or any other condemnation] -- for raising the issue, beleiving as you do, or discussing it, in the first place!" Do you see the difference, there? Do you realize, that throughout these discussions, I have NEVER suggested that anybody else accept or believe the Adam-God doctrine, or for that matter, Heavenly Mother? I've merely answered some questions and provided information on those teachings/ ideas. I've quoted previous PROPHETS AND APOSTLES on them. I haven't even said that i personally accept or incorporate them into my personal spiritual practice. -- Just presented information in the form of quotes from Apostles and Prophets, and suggested that these ideas may offer "beauty and wisdom" -- THAT's ALL . I've NEVER said that anybody else "should" accept or beleive them. On the contrary, i've said several times that every person should do their own research and determine for themselves, with the Guidance of the Holy Spirit -- what they think of these matters and all others. Now go back and read the kinds of accusations that have been hurled at me. Geez, i'm surprised nobody has questioned my birth LOL And please note the LACK of such accusations, ad hominems, etc from my direction. Now, do YOU think that's fair, reasonable, -- let alone Christlike behavior of anyone claiming to represent Christ, or presuming to lecture others on the nature and meaning of the Gospel, Priesthood, or other similar principles? Can you blame me then, for deciding to reply with extreme discretion and care? Look, Anabelli -- and anyone else sincerely interested in discussion -- If there's something you feel you need that i've not provided, just let me know -- and here's a hint: Perhaps email would be a better venue :) Blessings -- ~Gaia ([email protected])

GAIA: I think -- and there certainly seems to be evidence here that others agree with this -- there's a difference between offense, and "righteous indignation". What that difference is, and what constitutes the latter, is certainly a matter of disagreement for many, however *rueful smile*. GAIA: I would certainly and strongly agree with (at least the first part of) that; However, i would not rule out "scholarship" and particularly "seek[ing] learning by study and by faith" (D&C 88:118) as another way to protect against false accusations, misrepresentation and error. GAIA: Oh, Agreed! Perhaps someday you might be interested in hearing how i was once asked by Apostle Mark E Petersen and my Stake President, to help the church ferret out some such "cultists"..... :) GAIA: Hmm -- And if i could present some quotes which indicated that he (or other GA's) DID? :) Blessings -- ~Gaia

Elsewhere, i answered a question regarding the Adam-God teaching by saying that the "Adam-God" Doctrine certainly seems to have been "binding" at one time, in that people were brought up before Church courts for DISbelieving it, And Crimson-Kairos replied by saying: Sources, please. I've never heard of anyone losing their TR or membership because they refused to pray to Adam, or because they disagreed with BY's theory. Here is my answer to that question -- Hi CK -- Please note i said nothing about "praying to Adam" -- that would be contrary to the Adam-God theory/ doctrine. However, YES indeed, there was an incident in which people were brought up to answer for DISbeleiving in "Adam-God" -- Quotes and Sources follow. BTW, this was posted in my very first message on the topic, and i've referred to it several times since then -- *smile* -- that's the sort of thing i'm talking about, when i say that it's obvious people aren't actually READING what i write, they're just accepting the misrepresentations they hear from others Here ya go -- It's long, so please have some patience and perseverance -- FIRST, some background material: As i've said previously, the Adam-God doctrine -- Which was introduced to the Church during a General Conference address by President Brigham Young -- Stated that Michael-Adam was a resurrected, glorified and exalted Being when he came to Earth, had honored his Priesthood and obeyed the Gospel on ANOTHER earth where he was physically born, lived out a mortal probation, and ultimately received his exaltation; that he brought EVe, one of his wives, with him to the earth, who was like him, a glorified exalted Being, and that together, they are also known as our Heavenly Father and Heavely Mother; that they partook of elements of this earth to again become mortal, and forgot all, in order to open up this Earth to the Fall, to mortality, and to provide physical bodies for THEIR spirit Children, who would subsequently come to this earth as mortal children. -- ALL of these statements are quotes from Brigham Young and other GA's. This doctrine was taught for a period of over 25-35+ years by not just Brigham Young, but many GA's, both here and abroad, over the pulpit in General Conferences and in official church publications, and it was incorporated into the Temple ceremony as the "Lecture Before the Veil" by Brigham Young, where it remained during the presidencies of FOUR prophets of the Church: From Brigham Young through Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow. The following is taken from Craig L. Tholson's, "Adam-God", "Doctrines Of The Restorations Volume I; P.O. Box 151, Payson, UT 84651-0151; Copyright 1991 by Craig L. Tholson) Doctrinal Controversy - The Bunkerville Matter Sometime prior to November 1890 a controversy arose in the Bunkerville, Nevada Ward, St. George Stake, concerning the Adam-God doctrine. Apparently, the matter first came to the attention of the Stake Presidency after Elder Myron Abbott, First Councilor in the Bunkerville Ward Bishopric, contacted them. His Bishop was Edward Bunker Jr., son of Edward Bunker. The historical record is quite clear concerning this controversy: High Council of St. George Stake met in St. George Tabernacle. President Ivins stated that he had learned that Father Edward Bunker of Bunkerville, in this Stake, had been teaching that some of the ceremonies at the Temple were wrong, and erroneous teaching was given in the Lecture at the Veil. As Elder Myron Abbot, 1st Counselor to the Bishop at Bunkerville had given some information on this matter, it was decided to learn from him, more definitely in relation to this matter. (St. George Historical Record, November 8, 1890, Church Archives) On December 13, 1890, the Bunkerville Ward Bishopric were invited to come before the Stake Presidency to voice their differences: High Council of St. George Stake met at St. George Tabernacle. In response to invitation of the presidency of the Stake, Bishop Edward Bunker Jr. and Elders Myron Abbott and Joseph I. Earl were present. President McArthur invited the brethren named to express themselves on the views said to have been expressed in Bunkerville Ward and which are considered by some to be unsound doctrine. Myron Abbott, counselor to Bishop Edward Bunker, Jr., stated that for a number of years, questions on Church teachings had been agitated in Bunkerville Ward. Bishop Bunker had stated he did not believe Adam was our God and Bishop Bunker had expressed his opinion that some teachings in the temples were wrong, -- notably -- part of the Lecture at the vail -- That Father Bunker had the same views. Father Bunker stated to him (Bro. Abbott) a number of years ago that Adoption would be of no avail as administered in the Temple. All such work would have to be done over again. Bp. Edward Bunker, Jr. among other things said: "In regard to the lecture at the vail in the Temple, it is certainly wrong. It teaches that Eve was an immortal being and was brought here by Adam." Did not believe this. "Thought that Adam was not a resurrected being." In answering question of councilor [George Q) Cannon, expressed his belief that Adam was the Archangel and that Jehovah and Michael were persons of Spirit; that Eloheim was a person of Tabernacle; and the Head of all. After a prolonged second session of the Council Bishop Bunker and his Counselor, Myron Abbott felt they had done wrong in contending on the subjects referred to. (Ibid., December 13, 1890) The St. George Stake High Council Minutes for this meeting reveal some of the proceedings. Councilor Cannon read the "Lecture at the Veil" (the same one Brigham Young dictated) and stated: ... the lecture says Adam was an immortal being and Eve the Mother of all living bore those spirits in the Celestial World and Adam and Eve came here to form Tabernacles for them to dwell in. (High Council Minutes, December 1-3, 1890, Church Archives) Councilor Smith, speaking of the veil lecture, said it: ... teaches us that Adam was created on another earth and that he was resurrected and came upon this earth an immortal being and begat tabernacles for the spirits they had created in the spirit world. (Ibid.) Councilor Miles insisted that the: ... lecture was a doctrine of the Church . (Ibid.) Councilor Smith again said: All the keys revealed to the Prophet Joseph are here now and in the possession of the Apostles and that Bro. Bunker had tread upon ground that is exceeding dangerous. And when a man questions the sacred things in the Temple that had been passed upon by the Apostles who hold the keys of the Kingdom he was on dangerous ground. (Ibid.) President McArthur: ... advised Bro. Abbott to go slow about preaching that Adam was the Father of Christ. (Ibid.) The minutes also record that: Councilor Cannon said Father Bunker and Bp. Bunker nor any other man has the right to preach doctrine contrary to that which is accepted as doctrine by the Church. And as Father Bunker has privately expressed his belief that the Lecture at the veil was wrong, he is an unbeliever to that extent. (Ibid.) And Councilor Cannon appropriately warned both parties: The Lecture at the veil and the things contained in it should not be mentioned outside of the temple. (Ibid.) Edward Bunker, Senior had not been invited to the December 1890 meeting. Since the position he held was condemned by the St. George Stake High Council, he now desired to defend his position: The High Council of St. George Stake took up the case of Edward Bunker, Senior, of Bunkerville Ward, who had been charged with erroneous views and teachings. Father Bunker's views were brought to the attention of the High Council on the 13th of last December. Since then Father Bunker expressed a desire to submit his views to the Council in writing. This was granted, resulting in a statement bearing the "Bunkerville, April 25th 1891," and submitted on ten pages of foolscap. (St. George Historical Record, May 15, 1891, Church Archives) The letter sent to the St. George Stake reads: After my return from Arizona, a controversy arose in the settlement, on points of doctrine principally between myself and Brother Myron Abbott. We mutually agreed to submit our views to the High Council. I was permitted by the Council to submit mine in writing. Here is their decision which they made before they received my report: Councilor Charles Smith then made the following motion: "That it is the sense of this Council that it is an error to believe or teach that Adam was not an immortal or resurrected being when he came to this earth, also that we pray to Adam as our God and it is wrong to teach that Adam is one of the Godhead." Seconded by Councilor D. H. Cannon. Carried unanimously, J. W. McAllister, Clerk of Court Council. Report to the Council: To the High Council of Saint George Stake of Zion Having been represented before you as not believing certain doctrines as held to be correct by Myron Abbott and others; and not being present at the Council when represented because of sickness, and having heard the minutes read since and with your permission to answer the charges in writing, I herewith submit to you my belief and unbelief. 1st I do not believe that Adam is the father of Jesus Christ, and the God we worship, and the God of this earth. He then submitted a very long letter detailing his beliefs and the scriptural references for those beliefs. First Presidency Requested After the Stake Council had read Father Bunker's letter, they deemed it wise: That the communication of Edward Bunker on what he believes and does not believe; together with a statement of the cause leading to the investigation which called forth his declaration, also the full action of the Council in this matter be forwarded to the First Presidency of the Church, asking their advice as to the proper course for us to take, as the Presidency and High Council of this Stake. Councilor David H. Cannon moved that the Presidency of the Stake with Councilor James G. Bleake, and the Clerk of the High Council act as a Committee to formulate this statement: carried. (St. George Historical Record, May 1-5, 1891, Church Archives) The proposed letter was drafted and a week later considered: The following was prepared and subsequently approved by the High Council and forwarded to the First Presidency: St. George, 22nd May, 1891. To President Wilford Woodruff and Councilors. As a result of the investigation the following was passed as the action of the Council: "It is the sense of this Council that it is an error to teach that Adam was not an immortal, or, resurrected, being when he came to this earth; also, that we pray to Adam as our God; and, it is wrong to teach that Adam is one of the Godhead; The First Presidency Responds: The First Presidency felt this matter was important enough for them to personally speak with the parties from Bunkerville Ward. And on June 11, 1892, they attended a special High Council meeting of the St. George Stake. From the historical evidence it is apparent that sometime after receiving the letter from the St. George Stake and before coming to St. George, the First Presidency requested some background information about the "Lecture at the Veil" from L. John Nuttall. Elder Nuttall was one of the principle brethren involved in editing and recording the lecture as dictated by President Brigham Young in 1877. Elder Nuttall's letter, dated June 3, 1892, was written just eight days prior to the special High Council meeting. It stated: In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Brigham Young, in following up in the Endowments, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing. Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose ppointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elders J. D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing material, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple. A copy of the Lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which President Young refers to Adam in his creation & c. [signed] L. John Nuttall For Presidents:W. Woodruff Geo. Q. Cannon Jos. F. Smith June 3, 1892 Salt Lake City (L. John Nuttall Papers, 4:290) Indicative of what was going on in the Quorum of Twelve just one week prior to the St. George High Council Meeting, may be the proceedings of the Quorum Meeting in which Apostle Abraham H. Cannon recorded: I was at my quorum meeting where were present all the presidency and myself, as also Bro. Lyman; Geo. Gibbs, clerk. Bro. Jos. F. Smith was mouth in prayer Thereafter some conversation followed as to whether Adam is our God or not. There are some in the Church who do not accept of the statements of Pres. Young that such is the case. (Abraham H. Cannon Journal, May 26, 1892) After receipt of Elder Nuttall's letter explaining President Young's perfecting of the Endowment, President Wilford Woodruff and his first counselor, George Q. Cannon, came to the St. George Stake for the purpose of settling "the case of disagreement on points of doctrine between brethren of Bunkerville Ward." President Wilford Woodruff's journal entry for the day of the meeting reads: We met in the tabernacle at 10 o'clock on the trial of Bishop Bunker [senior] on doctrine. We talked to them plainly on the impropriety of indulging in mysteries to create difficulties among the Saints. They purposed to be satisfied. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, June 11, 1892) We also have recorded the events of the meeting: High Council of St. George Stake convened at 10 a.m. in St. George Tabernacle. Prest. Dan D. McArthur prest. The council was favored with the presence of President Wilford Woodruff and his first counselor, Prest. George Q. Cannon. The case of disagreement on points of doctrine between brethren of Bunkerville Ward was called up. The results of this investigation was that all the Bunkerville parties became reconciled to each other on the points which they had been agitating for a long time, and which had engendered bitter feelings between them. (St. George Historical Record, June 11, 1892, Church Archives) Present at the High Council meeting was J. D. T. McAllister. He recorded in his journal: 10 a.m. attended High Council. Presidents Woodruff and Cannon present. The doctrine preached and contended for by Father Edward Bunker of Bunkerville Ward was investigated, condemned and Father Bunker set right. It was a nice time. Much instruction was given by the First Presidency present. (Diary of J. D. T. McAllister, June 11, 1892) [156] Also present was Charles Lowell Walker. Of the meeting, he wrote: St. George -- Attended the High Council at which Pres. Woodruff presided. G. Q. Cannon was present also and a large body of the leading men of this Stake. Br. Edward Bunker Sen. and others of Bunkerville, Nevada, had been advancing false doctrine. One item was, that he, Bunker, thought it was right to worship the intelligence that was in God the Eternal Father and not God, who made all things by the power of his Word. And another was that Adam was made of the dust of the earth contained in the Garden of Eden. He had also advanced some erroneous ideas concerning the resurrection. Pres. Woodruff and Cannon showed in a very plain manner that it was right to Worship the true, and Living God, and Him only, and not the intelligence that dwelt in Him; that His Son Jesus Christ, or Jehovah, never taught such doctrine, but always to worship my Father which is in Heaven, and to always pray to the Father in the name of His Son Jesus Christ. Showed that Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth and was made the same as all other men and Gods are made; and that the seed of man was of the dust of the earth, and that the continuation of the seeds in a glorified state was Eternal Lives. And after this mortal tabernacle had crumbled to dust in the grave, that God would, in the time of the esurrection by his Matchless Power, bring together again in the form of a glorified and an immortal [body] to the Righteous to dwell with Him forever. Also that those who were not righteous would also be resurrected, but not with a glorified body. Said it was not wisdom for the elders to contend about such matters and things they did not understand. And not to teach such things to the children in the Sunday Schools; they could not comprehend them. ...Showed the folly of some men because they cannot look up and prove by the Bible the glorious Revelations that God has given; they receive them doubtfully. Showed that God had, and would yet, reveal many glorious things that men could not prove, and Search out of the old Bible. Pres. Cannon said that it was not necessary that we should [teach] or endorse the doctrine that some men taught that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ. Counsel was given for the Elders to teach that which they knew, not that which they did not. The Meeting was in session over three hours, and much good counsel was given to the elders present on these things by Pres. Woodruff and Cannon. To me it was a feast for I had been pondering over some of these things of late. (Diary of Charles Lowell Walker, 2:740-741, June 11, 1892) A. R. Whitehead was present at the meeting: Elder A. R. Whitehead asked if we should not let these things alone and not talk of them in our Sunday Schools. Prest. Cannon said if he knew of anyone teaching these things in Sunday School he would want to suspend him. (St. George High Council Minutes of the Trial of Edward Bunker, Sr., June 11, 1892, Church Archives) During the June 11th meeting, the First Presidency revealed that the "Lecture at the Veil" had been scrutinized by the Twelve and "no man has any right to say anything against it:" George Q. Cannon instructed: Adam was created like we are. (Ibid.) He further testified: ... in the name of Jesus Christ that Adam was born just as we are born. The lecture at the veil is true ... procreation is the gift of eternal lives, and if we are faithful we shall create worlds and people them just as Adam has done. (Ibid.) [158] President Wilford Woodruff then left no doubt as to the true relationship between Adam and Christ: President Wilford Woodruff said Adam stood ahead of this world and Jesus was born long after. Now this is the key to the whole matter. (Ibid.) So, in 1892 we have the Prophet of God and his first councilor endorsing the doctrine which places Adam at the head of this creation, and which doctrine states that we are the literal spirit children of Michael, the Ancient of Days, our Heavenly Father. Nothing which was elaborated upon by the First Presidency in this High Council Meeting was contrary to what Brigham Young revealed forty years earlier in that historic Priesthood Session of General Conference, on April 9, 1852. The only change we now see is that without the presence of Brigham Young, men now felt free to criticize that which he revealed to the Saints as the word of God through the Prophet of God. It is obvious that Brigham Young intended Adam-God to be a permanent teaching to which the more faithful Saints would always have access. Certainly, Brigham believed that the temple ordinances would remain faithful to his designs, and the trust Joseph placed in him, regardless of the personal and spiritual immaturity of those who would not comprehend Adam-God. Perhaps we can best understand why Brigham Young felt so strongly about the doctrine if we remember two things: first, Brigham learned the temple ordinances from Joseph. Second, who did Joseph learn them from? (Craig L. Tholson, "Adam-God", "Doctrines Of The Restorations Volume I; Publishment: P.O. Box 151, Payson, UT 84651-0151; Copyright 1991 by Craig L. Tholson) * * * I think the above material demonstrates several things: 1. At one time, this teaching was certainly considered doctrine (High Councilmen and others even refer to it as such); 2. It was considered heresy to DISbelieve, doubt or question it; 3. It was considered a matter of loyalty and support of the "living Prophets" to accept the doctrine. 4. The Brethren were already even at this point, having difficulties with people questioning and causing contention over the teaching.....perhaps that gives us some indication of why it was gradually "phased out" as a teaching of the Church. And indeed, in 1898, Apostle George Q Cannnon, gave a talk before the first Sunday School Conference, titled, "Things that Should and Should NOT be Taught in Sunday School", at which he referred to Adam-God as a "Mystery" that should not be taught from the Stand. ("Things That Should and Things That Should Not Be Taught In Our Sunday School"; General Superintendent George Q. Cannon; Salt Lake City, Utah; November 28, 1898.) * * * For more on any of this, i recommend you "Google" any of the following: "Bunkerville Ward" "Bunkerville High Council" "Father" Edward Bunker "Adam-God" Blessings -- ~Gaia

Sources, please. I've never heard of anyone losing their TR or membership because they refused to pray to Adam, or because they disagreed with BY's theory. GAIA: Hi CK -- Yes, i'm happy to provide both quotes and references on this matter, but this really isn't the proper thread to do so -- So I'll post it to the "Adam God Questions" thread -- http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10005 Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi Antispatula -- Hey, your ID wouldn't happen to mean that you hate spatulas and work all day long to destroy them, tell terrible lies about them and their history and doctrine, would it???? Not so much links, but i have several examples in my files: 1. The Hymnal has been edited to remove references to doctrines that were taught by previous Church leaders, which are now considered heretical -- For one small example, see Hymn #51: "Sons of Michael He Approaches" which originally included a reference to the now-heretical "Adam-God" doctrine, as follows: The orignal version said: "Sons of Michael, he approaches! Rise; the Eternal Father greet" -- The Current version corrected it to read: "Rise, the ancient father greet." 2. A quote taken from the original Relief Society minutes is a good example of this problem of editing/ changing/ CENSORING historical materials, to support current policies: The ORIGINAL said: "The Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood" and that JOseph Smith was "going to make of this Society a kingdom of Priests, as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day." (Joseph Smith statement, 30 Mar. 1842, in microfilm copies of original minutes of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith Collection, at the Special Collections, Harold B Lee Library, BYU, Provo, Utah. And in: - Transcript copy in Linda King Newell papers, Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Ut. - Andrew F Ehat and Lndon W Cook, "The Words of the Joseph Smith" 110; - Jill Mulvay Derr, Janath Russell Cannon, and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, Women of Covenant, 43, 53. -- Compare with the altered version of these minutes in BH Roberts, ed. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 4:570. In printing the original minutes of the prophet's talk after his death, the official "History of the Church" omitted Joseph's first use of the word "Society" and changed the second "Society" to "Church", thusly: "going to make of this Church a kingdom of Priests, as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day." Those two alterations changed the entire meaning of the statement. 3. Joseph had himself crowned "King, Priest, and Ruler over Israel" -- (Minutes of meeting, 4 Feb 1885; Franklin D Richards diary, 4 Feb 1885... Lyman Wight and Heber C Kimball to Joseph Smith, 19 June 1844, LDS Archives. The concluding passage in which this statement appeared was DELETED from "History of the Church 6:340-341. 4. Changes to Scriptures and Revelations: Please NOTE: I got some of these off of a previous BeliefNet post, I haven't had a chance to examine each of these and compare with my GospeLink copy of the 1830 Book of Mormon; so i would encourage you to do the research and check for yourself, before necessarily accepting as truth, what is said here. Over the years the Mormon Church has made thousands of changes to its scriptures. LDS leaders have added and deleted words, and changed previously published revelations by writing in new material and falsely attributing it to an earlier date. Book of Mormon (1830 ed.), 1 Nephi p. 25 — Changes the phrase "the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, to read in modern versions, the mother of the Son of God. Later, on the same page the original phrase "the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father" now reads "the Lamb of God is the son of the eternal Father." This reflects Joseph Smith's changing doctrine of the nature of God. compare to: 1 Nephi 11:18 Book of Commandments (1835), Chapter 6 — Over 50 words added to the original revelation which alter the meaning and open the door for Joseph to give additional revelation. compare to: Doctrine and Covenants 7:1-8 Book of Commandments, Chapter 24 — Over 100 words added later to this revelation introducing terms and concepts not part of the LDS church when it was first formed. Such retroactive insertions of terms like "high priest", "presiding elder" and "high councilor" give the false impression that these elements were part of Mormon church since the beginning. compare to: Doctrine and Covenants 20:49-68 Book of Commandments, Chapter 28 — Over 300 words regarding the restoration of the Mormon priesthood have been added (apparently by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery) to the end of this revelation. By adding the story of a supernatural appearance of Peter, James and John to a revelation dated 1830, it appears that the giving of the Melchizedek priesthood to Joseph and Oliver has been known since then. However, nothing is known or recorded of any such event until this revision was added in 1835. compare to: Doctrine and Covenants 27 The Evening and Morning Star, October 1832 — Once again several hundred words are added to an earlier revelation. These give detailed policy guidelines and retroactively add new concepts like "presidency of the church" and "stakes", giving the appearance that such things came directly from God through revelation. compare to: Doctrine and Covenants 68 Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 749 — Joseph's candid statement that he "frequently fell into many foolish errors and displayed the weakness of youth and the corruption of human nature, which I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the sight of God" is modified and softened. The italicized words have been changed or deleted and an over 75 word disclaimer is added, which says in part, "In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins." compare to: Joseph Smith — History 22-29 5. Problems with HC "History of the Church": The HC deleted significant entries in "The History of Joseph Smith" as first published by "Times and Seasons" "Deseret News" , and "Millennial Star". Second, the officially published History of the Church also deleted evidence, introduced anachronisms, even reversed meanings in manuscript minutes and other documents which were detailed and explicit in their original form. Obviously, these changes create problems for anyone who would want to study/ understand LDS history and doctrine. Blessings - ~Gaia

GAIA: Look, A-Train, i think i've tried to carry on a relatively respectful, even cordial exchange with you, but i seldom see much indication of that from your side; instead, i see a lot of these spurious, semi-accusations. First of all, Heavenly MOther is certainly not an "anti-Mormon" topic -- as many posters to that thread indicated, there is a deep and abiding affection for and curiousity about Her among many LDS. Secondly, if you remember, I DID NOT RAISE the topic of Adam-God, i was merely responding to another poster's questions about it, and if you will remember what i actually said about it, it was hardly the kind of argument an "anti-Mormon" would make -- I said that while i did NOT necsssarily accept the entire idea, i did think it "contained some truth and beauty". That is hardly the sort of position any "anti-Mormon" would take regarding it. Thirdly, Please let me remind you that contrary to your theory above, i've introduced several threads on basic, essential LDS doctrine, such as the Fatherhood of Christ and the Oneness of the Father and Son -- http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...10011&st=75, See especially post # 76; - and i posted (TWICE -- Posts # 4 and 5) to the thread on "Being Loved By Heavenly FAther" http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9998. I can't help wondering whether they were ignored because they just don't fit the image of me as a (potentially) ravening "anti-mormon" wolf in the fold. I posted this topic because there were comments and questions on my sources, and this is one important issue seldom addressed, relative to sources . Look, the truth is (as the LDS references i gave indicate), there certainly have been changes to the historical record. You may not like that truth, but it does not necessarily have to be characterized as "Anti-Mormon" -- in fact, there are many ways of characterizing and understanding it -- and me. The desperate need to defend everything and quickly put down anything that is not considered "faith promoting" is NOT necessarily an indication of real faith, it's fear-based. Aamong a certain kind of Mormon, there is a tendency to believe that everything that is said or written about the Church must be glowingly positive and flattering, or else it's labelled "anti-Mormon." Because i've frequently told the truth about LDS doctrine and history, regardless of whether that truth is flattering to the church, i have been questioned on my motives and accused of being "anti." ...Why does the well-established and generally respected Mormon Church today need a protective, defensive, paranoid approach to its history that the actually embattled earlier Saints did not employ? Some people want Church history to be as elementary as possible and as defensive as possible. This is Accommodation History for consumption by the weakest of the conceivably weak Saints, for the vilest of the conceivably vile anti-Mormons, and for the most impressionable of the world's sycophants... It may be intended to protect the Saints, but actually disillusions them and makes them vulnerable... The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials... A so called "faith promoting" Church history which conceals controversies and difficulties actually undermines the faith of the Latter-day Saints who eventually learn about the problem from other, far more destructive sources who don't bother to try to understand those problems, only to use them against the Church ... I am convinced that we can be honest enough, faithful enough, and courageous enough to ACCEPT and DEAL WITH the problems in our History, rather than pretending they don't exist, and demonizing and punishing those who remind us of them. ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi John -- I've never said it IS an "official doctrine of the Church" -- That's a misrepresentation of what i actually wrote. GAIA: Well, aamof, JOhn -- *smile* -- he did (part of) that -- he announced / taught it at several General Conferences and Priesthood General Conferences, and called it both "revelation" and "scripture" (see the quotes) -- And in light of that i ask you to remember one of the OFFICIAL, scriptural definitions of "scripture": D&C 68:4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the bpower of God unto salvation. Now, A President of the Church said that he was so "moved upon by the HOly Ghost" to give this "scripture" and "revelation" -- So you tell me, was or wasn't it "scripture"? May i ask, John, have you actually READ either of my posts about it? Have you READ through the quotes i posted from Brigham and other General Authorities? If so, what do you think he was saying? If not, why not? With all due respect, you certainly seem to be coming down on a side of a disagreement without having actually bothered to read the evidence - do you think that's right? Do you think that's fair? Do you think that's wise? GAIA: Yes John, actually it WAS binding church doctrine (at the time) -- people were brought up before Church courts for DISbelieving it. AGain, i strongly urge you to actually read the material, rather than just go along with whatever misrepresentations you might have heard. Again, Here's where you can read what i actually said, for yourself: http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10005 Posts #1 and #12. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi Pam -- Yes, i know it can be a problem. After giving it a lot of thought, however, i guess i come down on the side of wanting to make sure i offer enough information, rather than not enough, and to state my "case" or my position, as clearly and thoroughly as possible. I figure anyone honestly interested in either the topic, or in truly understanding (and not just condemning or dismissing out of hand) my position, will be honorable enough to at least READ what i've actually written. I can't do much about someone who hasn't even that much integrity ; So i prefer to write to those who will actually read (even if that means persevering) before making judgements. I hope you're one of them! Blessings -- ~Gaia