Holy Ghost

[Princess3dward]

Bad choice of words?

[JoshuaFKon]

Bad choice of words?

Mine, or Young?

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

*shrugs* Both.

[JoshuaFKon]

*shrugs* Both.

Of course....

Well...I might have used a poor choice of words? (don't see how) But Brigham's was published in the (offical?) mormon newspaper, it could have been edited...

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

*shrugs* And he can't be wrong?

Just because he says something, doesn't make it true.

[JoshuaFKon]

*shrugs* And he can't be wrong?

Just because he says something, doesn't make it true.

Yes. That is true. Brigham was wrong.

However, that was not the point I'm trying to make.

Outshined said "He didn't say that God told him this[the Adam-God concept]"

I was pointing out that he was wrong, Brigham did say "God revealed" it to him.

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

Than take that up with outshined.

It looks like he just over looked it, or didn't know.

Bottom line, it is hardly of any relevence.

[JoshuaFKon]

Than take that up with outshined.

It looks like he just over looked it, or didn't know.

I did take it up with Oushined, he has yet to reply.

I don't think he was lying, he was just wrong.

Bottom line, it is hardly of any relevence.

I think it is, it proves that (assumeing Brigham was a prophet) that Prophets can be wrong about what they say they "heard from God"

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

depends on what they say..

and how strongly they know.

I think, for him, he wanted to believe it for some reason...

[Outshined]

Well...I might have used a poor choice of words? (don't see how) But Brigham's was published in the (offical?) mormon newspaper, it could have been edited...

Sure it could. The most telling evidence is that BY never submitted this to be considered for canonization as doctrine. If he thought it was important, wouldn't that rate a canonization, as actual revelation does? Yes.

Bottom line: it was never considered doctrine, and never taught by Brigham Young as such, which would be very odd if he heard it from God.

It is entirely a non-issue.

[Princess3dward]

Also, that is why we should pray before we read anything like that.

It is our filter!

[JoshuaFKon]

<div class='quotemain'>

Well...I might have used a poor choice of words? (don't see how) But Brigham's was published in the (offical?) mormon newspaper, it could have been edited...

Sure it could. The most telling evidence is that BY never submitted this to be considered for canonization as doctrine. If he thought it was important, wouldn't that rate a canonization, as actual revelation does? Yes.

Bottom line: it was never considered doctrine, and never taught by Brigham Young as such, which would be very odd if he heard it from God.

It is entirely a non-issue.

Let me see if I understand you correctly....

In your opinion, Brigham Young did not say that "God revealed" it to him.?

Josh B)

[Outshined]

In my opinion, it is doubtful. Revelation is taken seriously, and is usually canonized as scripture. That this was not is a big clue.

I suggest you read the links I gave you; you would likely find the answer to any questions you have about the subject.

[JoshuaFKon]

In my opinion, it is doubtful. Revelation is taken seriously, and is usually canonized as scripture. That this was not is a big clue.

I suggest you read the links I gave you; you would likely find the answer to any questions you have about the subject.

Well, sir. You might not like it. But it does say that he claimed this was from God.

He also said:

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent It out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95)

You might not personally believe the Adam-God theory, But it is clear that Brigham Young believed it and taught it as being "reveled by God"

Josh B)

[Outshined]

Again you are forced to quote from a non-doctrinal source. Ask yourself why sometime. Just one of the reasons that such things are not "clear" except to those who need it to be...

We certainly disagree on this subject. You might not like it, but the fact is that if BY believed it was from God, it would have been canonized. That's how it is done.

Show me a doctrinal source next time, okay?

From just one of the links you were given:

Upon initial examination, it might appear that President Young believed that the man Adam and God are the same personage. However, the use of selective quotation can distort a speaker's true meaning. Let's examine some other references from President Young:

"So I [brigham Young] disagree with you, Mr. B., in the first point we have noticed, for you believe that God is without body and parts, while the Bible declares He has a corporeal body; that in His likeness, precisely, He created Adam." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.238, Brigham Young, July 24, 1853, emphasis added)

"What resemblance did our father Adam bear to his God, when he placed him in the Garden of Eden?" Before he had time to reply, I asked him what resemblance Jesus bore to man in his incarnation? and "Do your believe Moses, who said the Lord made Adam in his own image and after his own likeness? This may appear to you a curiosity; but do you not see, bona fide, that the Lord made Adam like himself; and the Saviour we read of was made to look so like him, that he was the express image of his person?" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.317 - p.318, Brigham Young, April 7, 1852, emphasis added)

"Suppose you were rolling in wealth, and perfectly at your ease, with an abundance around you; you might have remained in that condition until Doomsday, and never could have advanced in the school of intelligence, any more than Adam could have known about the works of God, in the great design of the creation, without first being made acquainted with the opposite?" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.7, Brigham Young, October 23, 1853, emphasis added)

"The first revelation given to Adam was of a temporal nature. Most of the revelations he received pertained to his life here." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.170, Brigham Young, January 17, 1858, emphasis added)

"The Lord sent forth His Gospel to the people; He said, I will give it to my son Adam, from whom Methuselah received it; and Noah received it from Methuselah; and Melchizedek administered to Abraham." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.3, p.94, Brigham Young, August 8, 1852, emphasis added)

"The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, "we are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.312, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870, emphasis added)

From these quotations, we can learn several important things about President Young's views of Adam. First, God created Adam. Second, since Adam did not understand the works of God and received revelation from him, then God has superior knowledge to him. Finally, Adam is the son of God. Therefore, it should be obvious that President Young believed Adam and the Lord are not only separate and distinct personages, but that Adam has a lower station than his Father in Heaven.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/adam_god.htm

[JoshuaFKon]

Let me get this straight,

BY says "God reveled it to me"

By says "any thing I preach I consider scripture"

But you say, becasue it wasn't cannonized he didn't really think it was "aboslutly" true?

(1) He did teach that Adam was God

(2) He did say "God reveled" this to him

(3) He did consistanly preach this doctrine

(4) He did say the anything he preached was as "scripture"

But you say its all meaningless because it's not in the D&C?

What exactly did Brigham Young consider real revelation, what did he cannonize?

I am though disscussing this with you.

It is clear BY taught this as a true doctrine.

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

Josh....

I think you are getting upset...

It is all okay.

Maybe this thread should stop now..

[Outshined]

In the midst of your confusion, perhaps you can deal with the quotes I gave you when he clearly taught that Adam was not God...

If you'd read the links instead of covering your ears, you might get some insight.

You may not like it, but the fact that you can't find a doctrinal source for your accusation says it all. B)

[JoshuaFKon]

Josh....

I think you are getting upset...

It is all okay.

Maybe this thread should stop now..

I'm not upset in the least....

But I'm done...

Josh B)

[Outshined]

BY says "God reveled it to me"

Nope, not in any official capacity (or in a doctrinal source).

By says "any thing I preach I consider scripture"

Nope, not in any official capacity (or in a doctrinal source).

But you say, becasue it wasn't cannonized he didn't really think it was "aboslutly" true?

Certainly.

(1) He did teach that Adam was God

(2) He did say "God reveled" this to him

Nope, not in any official capacity (or in a doctrinal source).

(3) He did consistanly preach this doctrine

No, I've proven that false already.

(4) He did say the anything he preached was as "scripture"

Nope, not in any official capacity (or in a doctrinal source).

But you say its all meaningless because it's not in the D&C?

Pretty much. That's where the Prophet relays revelation.

What exactly did Brigham Young consider real revelation, what did he cannonize?

Read the D&C; it's all in there.

I am though disscussing this with you.

YAY!!

I'm not upset in the least....

But I'm done...

Because the answers don't fit the anti-Mo agenda.

[LionHeart]

Again you are forced to quote from a non-doctrinal source. Ask yourself why sometime. Just one of the reasons that such things are not "clear" except to those who need it to be...

We certainly disagree on this subject. You might not like it, but the fact is that if BY believed it was from God, it would have been canonized. That's how it is done.

Show me a doctrinal source next time, okay?

From just one of the links you were given:

Upon initial examination, it might appear that President Young believed that the man Adam and God are the same personage. However, the use of selective quotation can distort a speaker's true meaning. Let's examine some other references from President Young:

"So I [brigham Young] disagree with you, Mr. B., in the first point we have noticed, for you believe that God is without body and parts, while the Bible declares He has a corporeal body; that in His likeness, precisely, He created Adam." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.238, Brigham Young, July 24, 1853, emphasis added)

"What resemblance did our father Adam bear to his God, when he placed him in the Garden of Eden?" Before he had time to reply, I asked him what resemblance Jesus bore to man in his incarnation? and "Do your believe Moses, who said the Lord made Adam in his own image and after his own likeness? This may appear to you a curiosity; but do you not see, bona fide, that the Lord made Adam like himself; and the Saviour we read of was made to look so like him, that he was the express image of his person?" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.317 - p.318, Brigham Young, April 7, 1852, emphasis added)

"Suppose you were rolling in wealth, and perfectly at your ease, with an abundance around you; you might have remained in that condition until Doomsday, and never could have advanced in the school of intelligence, any more than Adam could have known about the works of God, in the great design of the creation, without first being made acquainted with the opposite?" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.7, Brigham Young, October 23, 1853, emphasis added)

"The first revelation given to Adam was of a temporal nature. Most of the revelations he received pertained to his life here." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.170, Brigham Young, January 17, 1858, emphasis added)

"The Lord sent forth His Gospel to the people; He said, I will give it to my son Adam, from whom Methuselah received it; and Noah received it from Methuselah; and Melchizedek administered to Abraham." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.3, p.94, Brigham Young, August 8, 1852, emphasis added)

"The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, "we are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.312, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870, emphasis added)

From these quotations, we can learn several important things about President Young's views of Adam. First, God created Adam. Second, since Adam did not understand the works of God and received revelation from him, then God has superior knowledge to him. Finally, Adam is the son of God. Therefore, it should be obvious that President Young believed Adam and the Lord are not only separate and distinct personages, but that Adam has a lower station than his Father in Heaven.

According to my understanding of the Adam-God theory, these quotes do not contradict it. These quotes seem to assert that God created Adam in His own image. The Adam-God theory that Brigham Young taught adopts the concept of God having a Father in Heaven. Thus His children would be in his own image. Further, in the literal translation from the Hebrew text, the word "create" was actually supposed to be "organized." One cannot draw the conclusion that because he made these statements, he did not teach or believe the Adam-God theory.

Although, it is clear that Brigham Young taught the bible account, there is absolutely no doubt that he also taught, and believed the Adam-God theory; concerning which, he also said that the things he was about to reveal to the people was not for most of them and the Lord would shut up the ears and block the understanding of those who would not accept it. For those who did not gain an understanding of it, it would make sense to continue to teach them the version they could understand; which version he said was given to the people of Israel because they also could not understand the other. It is possible that it was never included in the canon due to the number of people who did not agree with it.

As far as doctrinal sources go, one could also argue that the teaching "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."is not doctrinal, and therefore of no relevance, because that was derived from a discourse given by Joseph Smith which was never included in any "official canon".

I imagine in Brigham Young's days, the people held him in much the same regard as they hold Gordon B. Hinckley today.

This being said, and considering the fact that most LDS I talk to say they believe that Gordon B. Hinckley communes with the Savior face to face on a daily basis, if he was to come out in general conference and say "God told me such and such doctrine. I know it is true because God told me so." I'll bet people would not be sayng things like "He's only a man, he makes mistakes." but they would take him very seriously. But if said doctrine was not very agreeable, people would begin to shoot it down as soon as he died.

L.H.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Brigham Young both taught the Adam-God theory, and the correct relation of Adam to our Father in Heaven as recorded in holy writ. As Elder McConkie once wrote, the question becomes one of which Brigham Young will we believe? The answer:

We will believe the teachings that are in harmony with the standard works.

They're called the standard works because they determine the standard against which all doctrines are to be measured and tested. Wishing it were not so will not change those facts. Period. I can't remember the last time God had a revelation or truth to teach mankind, but decided to hold it back from the canon because "too many people disagreed with it." Perhaps people weren't worthy (as in Sinai and the golden calves), but truth is not dispensed according to its acceptability or popularity among mankind.

I personally believe that Brigham Young was either misquoted, misunderstood, mistaken, or a combination of all three. I do not find that the standard works support the contention that Adam was either a God, or our God. Adam was Michael, that is established in the D&C explicitly. As for the Adam-God theory, it contradicts so many passages of scripture that it cannot possibly be true as we understand Brigham Young to have taught it.

[Outshined]

Brigham Young both taught the Adam-God theory, and the correct relation of Adam to our Father in Heaven as recorded in holy writ. As Elder McConkie once wrote, the question becomes one of which Brigham Young will we believe? The answer:

We will believe the teachings that are in harmony with the standard works.

They're called the standard works because they determine the standard against which all doctrines are to be measured and tested. Wishing it were not so will not change those facts. Period. I can't remember the last time God had a revelation or truth to teach mankind, but decided to hold it back from the canon because "too many people disagreed with it." Perhaps people weren't worthy (as in Sinai and the golden calves), but truth is not dispensed according to its acceptability or popularity among mankind.

I personally believe that Brigham Young was either misquoted, misunderstood, mistaken, or a combination of all three. I do not find that the standard works support the contention that Adam was either a God, or our God. Adam was Michael, that is established in the D&C explicitly. As for the Adam-God theory, it contradicts so many passages of scripture that it cannot possibly be true as we understand Brigham Young to have taught it.

I agree with you completely, AK.

Thanks for your views on this too, LH.

[Princess3dward]

I just don't get how a prophet can teach something, that so many people in the church disagree with.

Aren't all truths testifyed by the spirit?

If that is the case, than would we not all believe that theory if it were true?

[Outshined]

I just don't get how a prophet can teach something, that so many people in the church disagree with.

Aren't all truths testifyed by the spirit?

If that is the case, than would we not all believe that theory if it were true?

It is not found in any scriptural source, and we have been told that it is not true by subsequent prophets. Plus BY himself taught many times that Adam was not God, so I consider it of no consequence. As AK said,

I personally believe that Brigham Young was either misquoted, misunderstood, mistaken, or a combination of all three. I do not find that the standard works support the contention that Adam was either a God, or our God. Adam was Michael, that is established in the D&C explicitly. As for the Adam-God theory, it contradicts so many passages of scripture that it cannot possibly be true as we understand Brigham Young to have taught it.