Questions Re "adam-god"

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

Oh - a claim to secret superior knowledge. How very surprizing.

Did you know that I once won the Superbowl and bowled a 300 game with oven mitts on?

Secret superior knowledge? Sounds rather gnostic to me.

The thing is, what Gaia said was factual about her background, and I doubt she would claim any superiority. Some folks have had through school or experience a lot of religious education. That said, it does not diminish the individual worth of anyone's opinion for they are all worthy of being heard.

Congratulations on the Superbowl, 300 game and the oven mitts.

I didn't say Gaia fancied herself superior to others. She doesn't strike me as too egotistical. I said that she claimed superior, secret knowledge - not magical knowledge, just secret and superior to the rest of us.

What she said about her background is hardly factual. No facts are in evidence. She made an unsubstantiated claim - that's all. As we have seen, Gaia is not fastidiously honest so I not necessarily put much faith in her claims. What I am refering to as less than honest... any Mormon knows that the Adam-God theory is neither doctrinal nor scriptural. Gaia falsely claimed it was both. Since Gaia also claims to be LDS, we know that she is aware that it is neither doctrinal or scriptural so her mistake is deliberate - hence the dishonesty.

Adomini: Like how would you know since Snow said:

The Church - deliberately - has no systematic theology and no one place that you can turn to to learn what we believe. The spirit behind the Church is spirit of prophecy and we do not define ourselves or limit ourselves by creeds and comprehensive promulgations.

It the most fundamental sense, the scriptures consititute the core of our beliefs. They are the canon, the standard by which we measure all else. To that you should consider what is officially published by the Church under the auspices of the First Presidency as approved to be accepted doctrine but only insofar as it is consistent with the canon. All else may be good and it may be true but in practical terms it is commentary, opinion and interpretation.

(Copied from What Is *official* Doctrine?....post 22)

I did say that but note that I said that the Church has no "sytematic" or creedal theology. The does in fact have theology, lots of it - much of it complex and sophisticated, more so than most demoninations.

To your point about Adam being a man and Michael being an angel and never the twain shall meet... In the pre-existance, Adam was Michael, the great and noble angel. When Michael received a mortal body, he was an angel no more.

In our theology, angels do indeed have free agency and became angels by exercising their agency and following Christ, rather than Lucifer in the pre-existance.

[Annabelli]

I agree with you Snow. You have phrased it to make sense. When I reread what I had wrote about Michael being the only one to agree with God's plan, that statement gave him the free agency.

[Gaia]

Gaia,

Did you address the issue with the quotes being edited and altered? Did I just miss that? I was hoping you would get to that.

-a-train

GAIA:

I have been dealing with a family emergency for a couple of days; as soon as i can, i will check on those quotes (I have the original JD on disk) and get back to you on that --

Meanwhile however, i would certaihnlly appreciate it if you would re-read the (previously posted) quotes from Brigham Young which clearly call this doctrine "REVELATION" and "SCRIPTURE".

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Annabelli]

Thanks for the homework assignment Gaia. However, we will just call a court recess until you return.

[Snow]

Meanwhile however, i would certaihnlly appreciate it if you would re-read the (previously posted) quotes from Brigham Young which clearly call this doctrine "REVELATION" and "SCRIPTURE".

Blessings --

~Gaia

I don't even think you are Mormon. I don't know about YOUR belief structure, but in the LDS structure, something isn't made scripture because someone, even Brigham Young, opines that it is scripture.

[a-train]

<div class='quotemain'>

Gaia,

Did you address the issue with the quotes being edited and altered? Did I just miss that? I was hoping you would get to that.

-a-train

GAIA:

I have been dealing with a family emergency for a couple of days; as soon as i can, i will check on those quotes (I have the original JD on disk) and get back to you on that --

Meanwhile however, i would certaihnlly appreciate it if you would re-read the (previously posted) quotes from Brigham Young which clearly call this doctrine "REVELATION" and "SCRIPTURE".

Blessings --

~Gaia

Gaia,

Thanks.

My issue with the quotes and their accuracy is not with regard to whether or not the doctrine taught by Brigham is revealed or scripture (Snow is talking about that). I am saying that the doctrine taught by Brigham (whether revealed or not) was not what the anti's claim--that Michael is Eloheim.

Saying Adam is God and saying Adam is Eloheim are two different things (at least in the context of Brigham's teachings). Do you see the difference? I am saying that the 'Adam-God-Theorists' are NOT teaching something taught by Brigham, but are altering his teachings to make it appear that he taught what they assert--that Michael is Eloheim.

Brigham certainly taught that Adam is God, but as the Doc pointed out early in this thread, he did NOT teach that Adam is Eloheim. The antis however, edit Brigham's quotes and assert otherwise.

-a-train

[alaskanray]

And has anyone ever read Doctrines of Salvation? It consists of 3 books, and in one of them dissects this "Adam-God" Theory. It states and shows, in its entirety, that God and Adam are distinct individuals and not the same being. It has the whole discourses of Brigham Young in it as well. If you read the whole thing, Brigham Young isnt saying that they are one and the same. You want answers? Read what is written. The books were written by Joseph Fielding Smith.

Adomini...where can I lay my hands on Doctrines of Salvation???? I would love to get a copy.

[alaskanray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Meanwhile however, i would certaihnlly appreciate it if you would re-read the (previously posted) quotes from Brigham Young which clearly call this doctrine "REVELATION" and "SCRIPTURE".

Blessings --

~Gaia

I don't even think you are Mormon. I don't know about YOUR belief structure, but in the LDS structure, something isn't made scripture because someone, even Brigham Young, opines that it is scripture.

Snow, I see on your ID you're shown as an "advanced moderator". Does this mean you are a moderator of the board or is that your personal preferencial title? As nasty as you have been in your posts, I hate to believe you are a moderator of the board. There is a definite lack of tact or respect in your attacks on Gaia. Please try to curb your angst and maintain some modicum of civilized and mature communications here. I am really getting offended by your personal attacks on her. I noticed, however, amid all these attacks, that Gaia has never responded in kind.

Kudos, Gaia. Not all of your posts have merit but you are certainly allowed the right to post them and at the very least you maintain your dignity and communicate respectfullly. I don't know if I could keep my cool as well as you have done.

[Snow]

Snow, I see on your ID you're shown as an "advanced moderator". Does this mean you are a moderator of the board or is that your personal preferencial title? As nasty as you have been in your posts, I hate to believe you are a moderator of the board. There is a definite lack of tact or respect in your attacks on Gaia. Please try to curb your angst and maintain some modicum of civilized and mature communications here. I am really getting offended by your personal attacks on her. I noticed, however, amid all these attacks, that Gaia has never responded in kind.

Be offended all you like. It's America.

[Snow]

Adomini...where can I lay my hands on Doctrines of Salvation???? I would love to get a copy.

Depends on where you live. In California most used book stores have a shelf of LDS books in their religion section. In SLC you can try Ken Saunders Books, Benchmark Books and Sam Wellers - you can call them and they ship. There's also a very big LDS used bookstore in Provo that might be called Brigham Books.

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

And has anyone ever read Doctrines of Salvation? It consists of 3 books, and in one of them dissects this "Adam-God" Theory. It states and shows, in its entirety, that God and Adam are distinct individuals and not the same being. It has the whole discourses of Brigham Young in it as well. If you read the whole thing, Brigham Young isnt saying that they are one and the same. You want answers? Read what is written. The books were written by Joseph Fielding Smith.

Adomini...where can I lay my hands on Doctrines of Salvation???? I would love to get a copy.

You can order them through Amazon. They have some New sets as well as some Used sets.

Elphaba

[pam]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

And has anyone ever read Doctrines of Salvation? It consists of 3 books, and in one of them dissects this "Adam-God" Theory. It states and shows, in its entirety, that God and Adam are distinct individuals and not the same being. It has the whole discourses of Brigham Young in it as well. If you read the whole thing, Brigham Young isnt saying that they are one and the same. You want answers? Read what is written. The books were written by Joseph Fielding Smith.

Adomini...where can I lay my hands on Doctrines of Salvation???? I would love to get a copy.

You can order them through Amazon. They have some New sets as well as some Used sets.

Elphaba

You can also get them through Deseretbook.com

[Gaia]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Meanwhile however, i would certaihnlly appreciate it if you would re-read the (previously posted) quotes from Brigham Young which clearly call this doctrine "REVELATION" and "SCRIPTURE".

Blessings --

~Gaia

I don't even think you are Mormon. I don't know about YOUR belief structure, but in the LDS structure, something isn't made scripture because someone, even Brigham Young, opines that it is scripture.

Snow, I see on your ID you're shown as an "advanced moderator". Does this mean you are a moderator of the board or is that your personal preferencial title? As nasty as you have been in your posts, I hate to believe you are a moderator of the board. There is a definite lack of tact or respect in your attacks on Gaia. Please try to curb your angst and maintain some modicum of civilized and mature communications here. I am really getting offended by your personal attacks on her. I noticed, however, amid all these attacks, that Gaia has never responded in kind.

Kudos, Gaia. Not all of your posts have merit but you are certainly allowed the right to post them and at the very least you maintain your dignity and communicate respectfullly. I don't know if I could keep my cool as well as you have done.

GAIA:

Hi Alaskanray --

Thank you so much for those thoughts -- it is very gratifying to have someone recognize what is not an easy thing to do!

Some people cannot tolerate anyone honestly having a different view/ perspective; they not only take it very personally, they demonize the person and their view(s).

I sometimes still have trouble understanding how people cannot see what i see, but i certainly try not to demonize them for it!

Thanks again --

~Gaia

[Snow]

GAIA:

Hi Alaskanray --

Thank you so much for those thoughts -- it is very gratifying to have someone recognize what is not an easy thing to do!

Some people cannot tolerate anyone honestly having a different view/ perspective; they not only take it very personally, they demonize the person and their view(s).

I sometimes still have trouble understanding how people cannot see what i see, but i certainly try not to demonize them for it!

Thanks again --

~Gaia

That's laying it on a bit thick. No one cares that you have different opinions. The problem is your false claims of doctrine and scripture.

Despite what you say Gaia, no one thinks you are a demon. Maybe it makes you feel better to play the victim.

[Moksha]

Despite what you say Gaia, no one thinks you are a demon. Maybe it makes you feel better to play the victim.

But wasn't there a challenge to her credibility by stating your disbelief of her educational and employment background and questioning her membership status in the Church? While not saying she was a demon, these do seem rather like ad hominen attacks.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

Despite what you say Gaia, no one thinks you are a demon. Maybe it makes you feel better to play the victim.

But wasn't there a challenge to her credibility by stating your disbelief of her educational and employment background and questioning her membership status in the Church? While not saying she was a demon, these do seem rather like ad hominen attacks.

I didn't express active disbelief about her education or employment background (at least I don't think I did) though there is no good reason to believe her. I just pointed out that such was not a "factual" matter as claimed. It is simply an unsupported allegation.

Yes - tongue-in-cheek I questioned her LDS status... because as I said, ALL MORMONS understand what the scriptures are. My little children and elderly neighbors included. ALL Mormons know that her concept of the Adam-God theory is not scriptural. ALL know it. That leaves us with two options, either she isn't LDS and doesn't know, or is being less than honest. There is no middle ground. You can't be LDS and not know.

I also understand her argument that despite what we all know and despite what the Church says, she understands what constitutes scripture and doctrine better than we do. Obviously, I disagree.

Ad hominem means that you attack the person - you're dumb, your funny looking, you herd goats - instead of attacking the argument. If part of the posters argument is dishonest and it is pointed out, that is not ad hominem. It speaks directly to the argument.

[Gaia]

But wasn't there a challenge to her credibility by stating your disbelief of her educational and employment background and questioning her membership status in the Church? While not saying she was a demon, these do seem rather like ad hominen attacks.

GAIA:

Hi Moksha --

I'm certainly gratified to see how many people see through all the "explanations" and defenses (ala "tongue-in-cheek" -- LOL), and recognize ad hominem attacks. One can only play such games so much for so long, before it becomes very clear (to those with eyes to see) -- what's really going on.

Oh, and the whole business about "what is scripture" --

Evidently, i need to repeat it again:

(Doctrine and Covenants 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 power of God unto salvation."

And Brigham Young, then-Prophet and President of the Church, said he was so "moved" when he taught the Adam-God doctrine:

I feel inclined here to make a little 'scripture.'...:

(Brigham Young, General Conference, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. October 8th, l854, Hist.Rec.)

And:

"Some years ago I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father

and God, That will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel because of

their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. It is

one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, yet the world

hold it in derision. Had I revealed the doctrine of baptism for the dead

instead of Joseph Smith, there are men around me who would have ridiculed

the idea until doomsday. But they are ignorant and stupid as the dumb ######."

Brigham Young, 8 Oct 1861, Ms sermons of Brigham Young, Church Archives.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean (and i have NEVER said) that we are currently responsible for it since we have "updated" instructions from current GA's -- but it certainly makes clear that the doctrine WAS at ONE TIME considered both "scripture" and "revelation" by the PROPHET of the Church -- In fact, a Bishop was brought up on charges before a High Council Court for FAILING to beleive /accept it.

Anyone who wants to dispute that, has an argument with Brigham and the other GA's who taught this doctrine over the period of some quarter-century -- not me ---

-- And anyone who actually checks the record will see that my "honesty" is fully intact and doing just fine, thankyouverymuch.

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Moksha]

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean (and i have NEVER said) that we are currently responsible for it since we have "updated" instructions from current GA's -- but it certainly makes clear that the doctrine WAS at ONE TIME considered both "scripture" and "revelation" by the PROPHET of the Church -- In fact, a Bishop was brought up on charges before a High Council Court for FAILING to believe /accept it.

Blessings --

~Gaia

Yes. I remember reading about this case. Fortunately, this was after Brigham Young, and this Bishop from Nevada was finally exonerated.

I think Orson Hyde was also an opponent to this Adam-God idea, and although he alone of the Apostles challenged this idea, he was merely chided by Brother Brigham rather than punished for his disbelief.

[snipe123]

<div class='quotemain'>

It is discussing it in a proper manner and setting. the way this was presented in this forum was in an attackign manner.

GAIA:

Ohpuhleez. Go back and read this entire exchange and it becomes very clear who has done the "attacking" and who has NOT.

* * *

Hi Rosie --

You make a very good point about this doctrine being relevant to "knowing who we worship" -- and in fact, that's exactly what Brigham YOung said about it:

Some years ago I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God. That will be a curse to many of the elders of Israel because of their folly with regard to it. They yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven. Yet the world holds it in derision.

(Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, Oct 8, `1861)

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 and non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later . . . 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 of 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 . . . 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, 1:50-51, 1854)

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...Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth . . . We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? He is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim, "go ye and make an earth." . . . Father adam came here, and then they brought his wife . . . 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.

(Deseret News, June 18, 1873)

INterestingly, Joseph Smith said something very similar, and quite relevant to and consistent with this theory/doctrine:

If men do not comprehend the character of God they do not comprehend themselves.....

Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,--namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one,--from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.

Discussing this theory leaves a bad taste in people's mouth.

GAIA:

LOL -- Funny you should say that -- Joseph Smith said just the opposite. IN the King Follet Discourse - -which many say goes hand-in-hand with the Adam-God theory/doctrine, Smith said:

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. The first principles of man are self-existent with God. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement and improvement. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. God Himself found Himself in the midst of spirits and glory. Because He was greater He saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest, who were less in intelligence, could have a privilege to advance like Himself and be exalted with Him, so that they might have one glory upon another in all that knowledge, power, and glory. So He took in hand to save the world of spirits.

This is good doctrine. It tastes good. You say honey is sweet and so do I. I can also taste the spirit and principles of eternal life, and so can you. I know it is good and that when I tell you of these words of eternal life that are given to me by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the revelations of Jesus Christ, you are bound to receive them as sweet. You taste them and I know you believe them. I rejoice more and more.

(The King Follett Discourse: a Newly Amalgamated Text by Stan Larson Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 18 (1977-1978), Number 2 - Winter 1978 204.)

Joseph Smith made a prophecy about Brigham Young:

"Your name shall be known for good and evil throughout the world"

GAIA:

Oh, let's look at the REST of that story, and make sure that we accurately portray its meaning/ implication:

Upon seeing Brigham Young for the first time and while yet some distance away the Prophet Joseph stopped his chopping on a beech log, straightened up, studied Brigham for a moment, then remarked: "There comes the greatest man who ever lived to teach the identity of God to the world, and he will yet lead this people."

[brigham Young first met Joseph Smith in September, 1832 in Kirtland, Ohio. He said: "Here my joy was full at the privilege of shaking the hand of the Prophet of God, and I received the sure testimony, by the spirit of pro-phecy, that he was all any man could believe him to be, a true prophet." (Mill Star July 11, 1863, p. 439.) During this visit a meeting was held in which Brigham spoke in tongues. After this manifestation Joseph prophesied: "The time will come when brother Brigham Young will preside over the Church." (See History of the Church 1:297; Mighty Men of Zion, p. 16; Mill Star 21:439; Journal of Discourses 3:51; 4:54; 5:332; 8:206; 9:89, 332; They Knew The Prophet, Hyrum L. Andrus, p. 34.)]

Not everything every prophet has said, or will say or teach is true. they are just susceptible to temptation and listening to the wrong spirit as any one of us.

GAIA:

So when a prophet says, "This was a REVELATION to me, and it is a REVELATION to you", and "this is SCRIPTURE", he culd actually be teaching FALSE DOCTRINE or even be "listening to the WRONG Spirit"? And by "wrong spirit", you mean exactly who -- the Devil?

So just to be clear: You are actually suggesting that Brigham Young, sustained as "Prophet Seer and Revelator" was actually listening to the DEVIL (or a "wrong" spirit) when he claimed he had received revelation?

If you can't be sure who your prophets are actually getting their revelation from, why bother to HAVE prophets?

~Gaia

Finally an unobscure quote the average person can look up without coning the depths of the journal of discourses to discover...The King Folet Discourse has nothing to do with Adam-God...you begin by saying:

"IN the King Follet Discourse - -which many say goes hand-in-hand with the Adam-God theory/doctrine, Smith said:"

This premise, as are many that you postulate is very flawed...One might say Joseph Smiths King Follet discourse goes "hand-in-hand" if they wanted to use it to prop up their theory to make it sound more legit, but to do so, would do a grave injustice to what Joseph was ACTUALLY saying...The doctrine that Smith revealed to the world in this speach was indeed delicious to the soul, and still is when you read it in context...when read in this context, it has nothing to do with Adam-god-theory that is being discussed...You are way out of line to use it that way...Very interesting retorical trick to use a statement by one prophet to castigate someone for finding your interpretation of the words of another prophet distasteful...

I have not said anything on this subject since I have noted that others have done an excellent job...For the record and in summary, I fall into the "A-train" camp (as usual...haha) on this subject...I would also hasten to add that I believe that various prophets commenting on this theory (and condemning it) are better qualified to interpret Brighams words than we are...To me this is the Lords church, and he leads it...If this doctrine were so important, it would still be taught openly, not religated to obscurity...

Would like to point out also that The Journal of discourses was recorded by scribes listening to these speaches, so it is conceivable that some of what was recorded is not accurate...a few missplaced words can really distort meaning...others have already commented on interpretation so I will not beat that dead horse...this is not the answer to the whole issue, but it certainly is relevant...

[Doctor Steuss]

Doctor Steuss: As Michael/Adam was a member of the Divine Council, I imagine he might have a few important duties to perform in the hereafter as well (even perhaps standing as a judge of sorts).

I thought that Michael is an angel, and the only angel who did not disagree with God's plan to give the free agency. (Because angels do not possess the free agency.) And in the days of old, angels appeared to man in the form of men.

I think Adam is a very important Prophet of this world but that he is "ADAM." (And God is God, Jesus-Jesus, Moses-Moses)

Hi Annabelli,

D&C 107 (in particular verse 54) might help shed a bit of light on this. Michael was the pre-mortal Adam (at least in regards to LDS theology). We were all "angels" at one point, and we still are to an extent (refer to Psalm 82:6 -- quoted by Christ in John 10:34).

I don't understand how angels can appear to men and be the men that they appear to.

Outside of apocryphal texts, I am unaware of anything that has Michael appearing to Adam. There is a wealth of examples where Michael meets Adam in various apocryphal texts, but I don't know of anything within the LDS canon.

[Annabelli]

Doctor Steuss: I can see where my Hallmark Card reading days have caught up with me. So if Adam was Michael and he was an angel then Adam was never God. And Michael was never God.

And the Jews are pretty certain, actually absolutely certain, that Moses is not God. (I think?)

Will the Heavenly Father have a different identity/name in the Celestial Kingdom?

[Snow]

Hi Moksha --

I'm certainly gratified to see how many people see through all the "explanations" and defenses (ala "tongue-in-cheek" -- LOL), and recognize ad hominem attacks. One can only play such games so much for so long, before it becomes very clear (to those with eyes to see) -- what's really going on.

You just love to assert what a victim you've been. What's your motivation?

[a-train]

The terms Eloheim, Jehovah, Michael, Adam, God, Jesus, Bible, bird, dog, house, car, etc., etc., etc. and etc. are ALL earthly terms and I highly doubt we will use any of these (or any English for that matter) in the eternities.

Adam had a pure and undefiled language (Moses 6:6). This language is said to have been made, at least in part, by Adam (Moses 3:20). I therefore assume that this language was NOT spoken by us in the pre-mortal world. Even if it was, we certainly don't use it now.

Perhaps the restitution of all things on this earth will include the bringing back of the universal language of Adam.

I think we will not only know Heavenly Father by a different name, but we will certainly have a new name (D&C 130:11 and Rev. 2:17), and I suspect that so will everthing else (at least to us).

-a-train

[Moksha]

Will the Heavenly Father have a different identity/name in the Celestial Kingdom?

Possibly the nickname, The Big Guy?

[Snow]

I would also hasten to add that I believe that various prophets commenting on this theory (and condemning it) are better qualified to interpret Brighams words than we are...

The poster implies that such various prophets do not understand what constitutes scripture or doctrine.