Maverick

I provided several statements by men in attendance when Brigham Young gave the speech recorded in JD 1:50-51, who confirm that the speech was recorded accurately. And no it isn’t possible that all these men “misheard” what Brigham said on that occasion. As for additional Adam-God statements by Brigham Young and his contemporaries over the next 25+ years, many of these are easy to find online. Here are two links that document many of Brigham Young’s Adam-God statements: https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Brigham_Young_Adam.pdf https://www.adamgod.com/ Yes, quite a few of his contemporaries repeated what Brigham Young taught regarding Adam-God. Some were apostles, others leading church authorities, and other lay members. There were several apostles who taught Adam-God in their own words or testified that the spirit had confirmed to them that it was true. Others accepted it as true because they sustained Brigham Young as the prophet of the church and believed that what he taught was the word of the Lord. See for example: Franklin D. Richards 12/10/1853 MS 15:803-04 Hear what the Prophet Daniel says upon this subject - [quotes Daniel 7:9, 10, 13, 14.] Again, the word of the Lord through the Prophet Joseph, gives additional importance, if possible, to the part which Adam acts relating to his children, which reads as follows - [quotes D& C 29:26.] From the foregoing we are enabled to draw important conclusions, that before the coming of the Lord Jesus in the clouds of heaven, to take the reins of government upon the earth, Adam comes and gathers around him all that have ever held keys of power under him upon the earth, in any of the dispensations thereof to man; he calls forth the dead from their graves, at the sound of his trump; he brings them to judgment, and they render unto him an account of their several stewardships; the books are opened that a righteous judgment may be rendered by him who now sits upon his throne, not only as the Father, but the Judge, of men; and in that capacity thousands minister unto him. An august assemblage are now gathered in one grand council around the great Patriarch of all Patriarchs, consisting of his sons, who have been faithful in that which was committed to them; and all this preparatory to that great event, when the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven should be given to the Saints of the Most High. Daniel saw that the Saints possessed the kingdom, by virtue of which Adam was once more in possession of the dominion given unto him before the fall, which was over every living thing that moved upon the earth, which rendered him the universal Sovereign and Lord of all. At this important period, when Adam is reinstated with full power upon the earth, seated upon his throne, as Daniel saw him - a glorious and an immortal God, one like the Son of Man comes in the clouds of heaven (as oftimes represented by the Apostles), to the Ancient of days, and receives from him dominion, glory, and a kingdom; or in other words, Michael, having accomplished the work committed to him, pertaining to this world, delivers up an account of his stewardship over the same, to that character represented as Yahovah in the creation of the world, who reigns in unison with those upon the earth, until his work is fully accomplished - till the last great contest with the enemy, who has been released for a little season, is won; then he in turn delivers up the kingdom to the great Eloheim, that in the language of the Apostle, `God may be all in all.' This final surrender, we are to bear in mind, does not detract from the God-like power and dominion of our first Parent, nor of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the Patriarchal order of government, each and every ruler is independent in his sphere, his rule extending to those below, and not to those above him, in the same order. ... [W]e find that ... Michael has power to deliver men from the power of the Devil, which is death; that by the sound of his own trump - the trump of the archangel, the nations of the dead shall awake and come forth to judgment, and there render an account to the Ancient of Days seated upon his burning throne. Then shall the nations know that he is their Judge, their Lawgiver, and their God, and upon his decree hangs the destiny of the assembled dead. Yes, our Judge will be a kind and compassionate Father, by whom none can pass, but through whom all glory, dominion, and power, will be ascribed to the great ETERNAL. Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball 10/6/1854 Journal of Joseph L. Robinson, 102-03 President Brigham Young said thus, that Adam and Eve were the names of the first man and woman of every earth that was ever organized and that Adam and Eve were the natural father and mother of every spirit that comes to this planet, or that receives tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brother and sisters, and that Adam was God, our Eternal Father. This as Brother Heber remarked, was letting the cat out of the bag, Heber C. Kimball 6/29/1856 JD 4:1 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. Heber C. Kimball 3/11/1857 Journal of Heber C. Kimball 20:17 The Lord told me that Jesus Christ was the son of Adam. Heber C. Kimball 4/30/1862 Heber C. Kimball, Memorandum The Lord told me that Adam was my father and that He was the God and father of all the inhabitants of this earth. George Q. Cannon 10/15/1870 Meeting of the School of the Prophets [George Q. Cannon] fully endorsed the doctrine that father Adam was our God and Father - or as He in many places is called, Michael the great prince - the Arch Angel, Ancient of Days, & c. It was not only wisdom, but perfectly consistent, that Adam & Eve should partake of the forbidden fruit and start the work of increase of their species. The above doctrine had been revealed to him, so that he knew it was true. Orson Hyde Wednesday 1/25/1871 Jans Christian Anderson Weibye Daybooks I attended meeting, Orson Hyde preached to us, and he told us that what we heard before that Adam is our God, we had a splendid good meeting. At Manti, Jan 25th Orson Hyde preached to us here in Manti, that, Adam is our God for this planet (Earth). George Q. Cannon 6/23/1889 Journal of Abraham H. Cannon He (George Q.) believes that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and that Adam is His Father and our God: that under certain unknown conditions the benefits of the Savior's atonement extend to our entire solar system. ... He asked me what I understood concerning Mary conceiving the Savior; and as I found no answer, he asked what was to prevent Father Adam from visiting and overshadowing the mother of Jesus. Then said I: "he must have been a resurrected Being." "Yes," said he, "and though Christ is said to have been the first fruits of them that slept, yet the Savior said he did nothing but what He had seen His Father do, for He had power to lay down His life and take it up again. Adam, though made of dust, was made, as President Young said, of the dust of another planet than this." I was very much instructed by the conversation and this days services. Lorenzo Snow and Franklin D. Richards 10/12/1897 Brigham Young Jr. diary At meeting of all the apostles except Grant and Merill, Pres. [Lorenzo] Snow led out on Adam being our father and God. How beautiful the thought - it brot [sic] God nearer to us. Bro Franklin [D. Richards] said it made him thrill through his whole body - it was new & it was inspiring. Brigham Young, Jr. Thursday 12/16/1897 Brigham Young, Jr. Journal Adam is our father and God and no use to discuss it with Josephites or any one else.

Agreed. I’ll start one later today, unless someone else would like to start one sooner.

How do you know that we don’t have a complete record of the discourse in question? And what about the dozens of similar statements by Brigham Young and others over the next 25+ years?

I believe that this very unlikely. Multiple witnesses heard it the same way it was published. And Brigham Young and his contemporaries made similar Adam-God statements many times over the next 25 years and beyond.

You’re welcome. 😉

https://journalofdiscourses.com/Brigham_Young

You can read pretty much any of Brigham Young’s talks and you’ll see that he switches topics frequently within his talks. As for the particular discourse in question, this is what several men who were in attendance recorded: Journal of Wilford Woodruff Our Father begot all the spirits that were before any tabernacle was made. When our Father came into the Garden He came with his Celestial body & brought one of his wives with him and ate of the fruit of the Garden until He could beget a Tabernacle. And Adam is Michael God and all the God that we have anything to do with. They ate of this fruit & formed the first Tabernacle that was formed. And when the Virgin Mary was begotten with child it was by the Father and in no other way only as we were begotten. I will tell you the truth as it is in God. The world don't know that Jesus Christ our Elder Brother was begotten by our Father in Heaven. Handle it as you please, it will either seal the damnation or salvation of man. He was begotten by the Father & not by the Holy Ghost. (More to this quote) Journal of Hosea Stout 2:435 Another meeting this evening. President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us. That he came to this world in a resurrected body, etc. Friday 4/9/1852 Lorenzo Brown Journal Meeting at 9 A.M. All male members met at 6 P.M. House full. President Young preached some new doctrine respecting Adam etc. Excellent discourse I thought. Friday 4/16/1852 Journal of Samuel Holister Rogers 1:179 Conference commenced on the 6 and continued until the 11, it was held in the new tabernacle, adjourned until the 6 of next October We had the best Conference that I ever attended during the time of the Conference President Brigham Young said that our spirits ware begotten before that Adam came to the Earth and that Adam helped to make the Earth, that he had a Celestial body when he came to the Earth and that he brought his wife or one of his wives with him, and that Eave was also a Celestial being, that they eat of the fruit of the ground until they begat children from the Earth, he said that Adam was the only God that we would have, and that Christ was not begotten of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father Adam, that Christ, was our elder brother.

I don’t believe that the general church membership had demonstrated the ability to discern truth from error beyond recognizing the truthfulness of the restored gospel in general. Speaking of these same people, Joseph Smith had said: “[T]here has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand. I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen.” (Jan. 20, 1844.) DHC 6:183-185. Many church members received the Adam-God teaching with gladness and considered it to be light and truth revealed from heaven. This included apostles like Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Franklin D. Richards. Others had difficulty accepting it as it went against their traditions.

Brigham Young admitted that he may have been guilty of saying too much about who God is, as the Saints weren’t ready for it. I see the wisdom in this as well. And I think this is exactly what we’re seeing. It’s nice that the church is more tolerant of this now, as long as you don’t try to publicly teach controversial things like Adam-God as official church doctrine or try to disparage current church leaders for not openly teaching the mysteries anymore.

If we take these statements at face value as the gospel truth, then the only conclusion is that Brigham Young taught false doctrine, which “negates the essential features of the whole plan of salvation, belittles God, [and] makes a mockery of the atonement of his Son.” And that he did this in his official capacity as the president and prophet for 25 years from the pulpit in General Conference, in meetings of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 and in the temple. And yet, Kimball and McConkie literally declared him to be a teacher of falsehoods if we take the two statements you shared at face value. It wasn’t taught as a theory. It was taught as revealed truth. And if the teachings of the president of the church and other apostles for 25+ years about the character of God and eternal progression towards becoming like God doesn’t constitute “doctrine,” then I don’t know what is. But I agree that believing or disbelieving in Adam-God today is “not a test for determining one's loyalty to the prophets.”

Are you suggesting that Brigham, as the prophet of the church, taught falsehoods about God for 25 years from the pulpit in General Conference, in meetings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, and in the temple, while claiming that this was new light and truth revealed from heaven?

You cut out the relevant context for why he didn’t write down his prophecies and revelations. Let’s look at the reason: “2 And as these plates are small, and as these things are written for the intent of the benefit of our brethren the Lamanites, wherefore, it must needs be that I write a little; but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me.” The reason for why he is not writing down his prophecies and revelations is not because they would be redundant, but rather because he didn’t have enough space on the small plates, because the space was almost completely used up already. Additionally, he says: “3 Behold, it is expedient that much should be done among this people, because of the hardness of their hearts, and the deafness of their ears, and the blindness of their minds, and the stiffness of their necks; nevertheless, God is exceedingly merciful unto them, and has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land. 4 And there are many among us who have many revelations, for they are not all stiffnecked. And as many as are not stiffnecked and have faith, have communion with the Holy Spirit, which maketh manifest unto the children of men, according to their faith. 10 And it came to pass that the prophets of the Lord did threaten the people of Nephi, according to the word of God, that if they did not keep the commandments, but should fall into transgression, they should be destroyed from off the face of the land. 11 Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers, did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to diligence; teaching the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was. And after this manner did they teach them. 12 And it came to pass that by so doing they kept them from being destroyed upon the face of the land; for they did prick their hearts with the word, continually stirring them up unto repentance.” What insights can we gain from this description of conditions among the members of the church in Jarom’s day that may be applicable to our day? 🤔

I only brought up Adam-God in this particular discussion because I was pressed to provide a tangible example of something that supports the possibility that changed teachings in the church can be due to God taking away light and truth from the church because the majority of the members couldn’t handle it. In a general sense Adam-God is important to me personally because I believe in searching out and embracing all truth. The Adam-God doctrine was taught as truth and a mystery of God by the president of the church for 25 years from the pulpit in General Conference, in priesthood meetings, and in the temple. To me this makes it significant.

I also want to add that Brigham switching topics and then returning to the previous topic is a very common occurrence in his many discourses. He did it all the time. There are also several other records of his discourse on Adam-God in Journal of Discourses 1:50-51 in journals of people who were in attendance and they all agree with how it is recorded in the Journal of Discourses.

Journal of Discourse 1:50-51 is hardly the only recorded instance of Brigham Young having taught that Adam is God the Father and the Father of Jesus Christ. There are many recorded statements by Brigham Young teaching Adam-God. Other general authorities at the time taught it, too. From this it as actually very clear what was taught. The problem is not in understanding what Brigham Young was talking about. The problem is that what he taught contradicts our traditional understanding of Adam. Many people really struggled with this. And as a result Brigham Young generally began teaching it less publicly and forcefully. But he still taught it repeatedly right up to the year of his death. In 1877, he included a thorough summary of the Adam-God doctrine in the lecture at the veil in the temple, which at the time was part of the endowment.

Agreed. I think fundamentalists have some valid points on doctrinal and historical issues. I agree that they are out of order and lack the priesthood keys they claim to have. It’s not my place to judge them, though. I think many of them will prove to be the “outcasts of Israel” who will be part of the final gathering of the elect who will build the New Jerusalem.

Again, I’m not interested in proving anything. The example I provided with Adam-God would be a textbook example of the Lord removing light and truth from the church, if what Brigham Young taught was true. If what Brigham Young taught was false or the leaders after him removed this teaching against God’s will, then that’s of course a different story. And quite frankly both of these other possibilities are way more of a problem for continuing revelation in the church, than God removing a true teaching because the members couldn’t handle it.

I guess if we really wanted to explore your theory that the original submitted talk called it a “guide” and Elder Packer went off script, we could examine the audio versions of his talk in different languages. But, like said before, the order of events doesn’t really change anything. Either way it was decided that calling the Family Proclamation a “guide,” rather than a “revelation” was the way to go.

I’m not assuming anything about the order of events. We don’t know what the original talk that was submitted and displayed on the teleprompter said. Which is why I said:

I completely agree. And the talk in question was corrected to change the description of the Proclamation on the Family as a “revelation” by definition to a “guide.” This is was a good correction, it’s not a revelation. Me too, big time. I would have to do some serious soul searching and wrestling with God to know what to do.

Oh boy, yes I reluctantly used Adam-God as an example of something that appears to be an instance of light and truth being taken away from the church because members couldn’t handle it, after you kept pressing me for one example showing that this possible. At no point did I suggest in any way that every change in the church was an example of this. Certainly not for edits to the printed versions of Conference talks, like the Boyd K. Packer instance (which was an entirely different discussion). At this point I think you are looking to find offense with my words, and I’m not really sure why that is. Perhaps my questions and suggestions make you uncomfortable. I don’t know. 🤷‍♂️

Brigham Young didn’t teach it as his opinion. He taught it as doctrine he had received by revelation from God. And it wasn’t just not canonized. It was essentially erased from existence and denied that he ever taught it. His talks were a scrubbed when they were reprinted in the Discourses of Brigham Young volume, to remove references to it. Either Adam is God the Father and the Father of Jesus Christ, or he isn’t. If he is, then this stopped being taught because the members couldn’t handle it. If Adam isn’t God the Father, then Brigham Young taught false doctrine about God for 25 years in GC, meetings of the first presidency and quorum of the 12, and in the temple. It’s really as simple as that.

This is just another way of saying that Brigham Young as president of the church taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years. Either Adam is God the Father and the Father of Jesus Christ of he isn’t. If he isn’t, Brigham Young taught false doctrine for 25 years. If he is, then the church has lost this truth. And God either took it away or the leaders after Brigham Young screwed up big time. God taking it away is by far the most likely explanation.

I wasn’t suggesting that the clarification in the printed version of the talk is because the members are unable or willing to handle verbatim transcription. I have no idea how you got that idea. The point is that Elder Packer or whoever “corrected” the talk clearly didn’t believe that it’s accurate to say that the Proclamation on the Family is by “definition a revelation.” The printed version has it correct. It’s a guide, not a revelation.

Matthew and Mark both record the following statement by Jesus Christ while he hung suffering on the cross: 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? I believe this shows that his Father in Heaven had left him to suffer alone without his support, at least for this part of the atonement.