Questions Re "adam-god"

a-train · October 2, 2007

Once again,

Let us not miss this portion of Brigham's words quoted above: '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."'

This puts a big whole in any assertion that Adam/Michael is Eloheim.

-a-train

PS

I also want to clarify this quote: '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' The antis want us to imagine a period on the end of that. As you can see above we have a convenient [...].

The antis paint a picture of a crazed prophet, angry that his own people did not receive his doctrine.

Here is the full quote: '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 inquire, I care nothing about it.'

Brigham was not saying that the LDS people disbelieved him, nor that he was frustrated by it, but that he was not concerned whether the saints believed this particular doctrine or not.

Doctor Steuss · October 2, 2007

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.

There you go. And Brigham Young differentiated between G-d the Father and Michael in a few sermons. This is why I think that Adam=G-d the Father is too simplistic an explanation for Brigham's words and doesn't take all of his teachings into consideration.

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

You would be correct.

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

I imagine He has had, and will continue to have the same identity for the eternities. However, we might actually know His "true" name in the CK (who knows, maybe it will be the Schemhamphoras and we'll spend the majority of our time just trying to learn how to pronounce the 216 letter name [joking... maybe]).

Gaia · October 2, 2007

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...

GAIA:

Hi There, Isaac --

Not really -- let me explain a bit more.

That portion of the KFD to which i referred has to do with the eternal progression of the Gods. There are indeed many people who feel that the (D&C 132) scriptural term, "eternal lives" (please note the plural) is directly related to Adam-God, in that the latter tells just how (and why) those "eternal lives" are played out.

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

GAIA:

It is certainly your right and privilege to make that decision for YOURSELF -- as it is certianly the right and privilege of other Saints to take as their guidance, the many quotes from General Authorites that encourage the Saints to pray about and receive their OWN inspiration on everything, and be guided by the HOly Spirit in all things.

For example, Brigham Young said:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him.

I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way.

Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."

(JD 9:150)

If this doctrine were so important, it would still be taught openly, not religated to obscurity...

GAIA:

With all due respect, that's an obviously and demonstrably false premise: There are many reasons why doctrines which are true, may no longer be taught or practiced -- for example, Polygamy remains a doctrine of the Church, and we've been told by some GA's that it will once again be practiced by the Saints -- but anyone currently advocating or practicing it risks their membership. It is NOT currently not taught, because it's not true, or unimportant.....

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...

GAIA:

That's one of the frequently cited objections to the JD, however, it's important to rememeber several things:

1. Those scribes were not just idly recording their haphazard or incidental memories of lectures; they were trained, experienced scribes whose JOB itwas to make official notes;

2. Many of the addresses in the JD appeared first in other official publications of the Church -- including the Deseret News, Millennial Star, Juvenile INstructor, Women's Exponent, etc -- ; thus corrections could have and would have been made before they were printed in the JD;

3. And in fact, we have testimony from Apostle and then President Wilford Woodruff that indeed, Brigham Young had a chance to review the Journal of Discourses, and that he (Wilford Woodruff) had also reviewed his sermons, and that the reporting in the JD was accurate.

4. (then) President Brigham Young said:

I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 13: 95.)

5. Finally, there is the following letter which appears at the beginning of Volume 1 of the JD, over the signature of the First Presidency of the Church:

LETTER FROM THE FIRST PRESIDENCY.

Great Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, June 1, 1853.

Elder Samuel W. Richards, and the Saints abroad.

Dear Brethren--It is well known to many of you, that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography, which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures, &c., delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve, and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward. Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these Reports, in England, for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter. You will perceive at once that this will be a work of mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your co-operation in the purchase and sale of the above-named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt.

BRIGHAM YOUNG,

HEBER C. KIMBALL,

WILLARD RICHARDS,

First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Blessings --

~Gaia

There you go. And Brigham Young differentiated between G-d the Father and Michael in a few sermons.

GAIA:

As you may remember from previous messages in this thread, so did i -- i said they are two very different Priesthood Offices, with very different roles.

Blessings --

~Gaia

Gaia · October 2, 2007

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

GAIA NOW:

Hmm, i was referrring to the Bishop in the Bunkerville Ward -- and i thought that was in Utah, am i mistaken about that?

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.

GAIA NOW:

Yes, he was pretty much the only one who really seriously and consistently objected to it ---

But i dunno 'bout "chided" - There are some who feel that it was a major reason for his 1875 re-positioning / "demotion" in the Quorum of Twelve, which meant that Pratt did not succeed to the Presidency as he would have otherwise, without the change.

-- Young said it was necessary because of Pratt's 1842 excommunication....but Young seems to have been unwilling to allow Pratt to succeed him at all.

Incidentally, Orson Pratt's 1842 excommunication resulted from his rebellion at Joseph Smith's attempt to marry Sarah Pratt after Joseph sent him on a mission overseas.

In 1860, the Quorum of the twelve met to consider Pratt's opposition to Brigham Young's teachings:

O. Pratt: In regard to Adam being our Father and our God; I have not published it, although I frankly say I have no confidence in it, although advocated by Bro. Kimball in the stand, and afterwards affirmed by Bro. Brigham. I have heard Brother Brigham say that Adam is the Father of our Spirits and he came here with a resurrected body to fall for his own children; and I said to him, it leads to an endless number of falls,

which leads to sorrow and death; that is revolting to my feelings . . .

O. Hyde: (President of the Quorum): To acknowledge that this is the Kingdom of God and that there is a presiding power, and to admit that he can advance incorrect doctrine is to lay the ax at the root of the tree.

Will he suffer His mouthpiece to go into error? No, He would remove him, and place another there. Bro. Brigham may err in the price of a horse or a house and lot, but in the revelations from God, where is the man that has given thus saith the Lord when it was not so? I cannot find one instance. Who is our Heavenly Father? I would as soon it was Father Adam or any other good and lawful being. I shall see him sometime, if I do right.

J. Taylor: When Bro. Brigham tells me a thing, I receive it as revelation. Some things may be apparently contradictory but are not really contradictory.

O. Hyde: I do not see any contradiction or opposition between B. Young & J. Smith.

G. A. Smith: [it is] for him [Orson] to acknowledge Brigham Young as President of the Church, in the exercise of his calling, but he [Orson] only acknowledges him as a poor driveling fool, he [Orson] preaches doctrines opposed to Joseph, and all other revelations.

As Brigham Young claimed, the Adam-God doctrine probably originated with Joseph Smith, who never proclaimed it openly, just as he never preached plural marriage publicly. The following sources substantiate this view:

Is there in heaven of heavens a leader? Yes, and we cannot do without one and that being the case, whoever he is may be called God. Joseph said that Adam was our Father and God

(Brigham Young, Journal History of the Church, May 14, 1876)

At meeting of school of the prophets, President Young said Adam was Michael, the Archangel and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God & that Joseph taught this principle.

(Wilford Woodruff Journal, Dec. 16, 1867)

Blessings --

~GAia

Doctor Steuss · October 2, 2007

[...]GAIA:
As you may remember from previous messages in this thread, so did i -- i said they are two very different Priesthood Offices, with very different roles.
Blessings --
~Gaia

I believe I missed that, but it sounds fascinating. I’ve never heard of “Michael” being a priesthood office (or at least I don't believe I have... my memory fails sometimes though). In a way I suppose it makes sense based on the roles of individual angels and their governing roles within Enochic literature. Mind hooking me up with a link to the specific post?

IMO, there was something deep in Brigham’s speeches. It’s possible he was trying to explain how Adam came to have a physical body. It’s possible he was trying to explain Adam’s relationship with both us and G-d the Father. It’s possible there was something much deeper altogether. But, based on his sermons as a whole, I don’t think he was teaching the so-called Adam/G-d theory/doctrine.

a-train · October 2, 2007

Gaia,

Are you ever going to address the incomplete and edited quotes? Do you believe the Being who held the 'office' of Michael and Eloheim to be the same, that a single Being acts as Eloheim and Michael?

-a-train

Gaia · October 2, 2007

I believe I missed that, but it sounds fascinating. I’ve never heard of “Michael” being a priesthood office (or at least I don't believe I have... my memory fails sometimes though). In a way I suppose it makes sense based on the roles of individual angels and their governing roles within Enochic literature. Mind hooking me up with a link to the specific post?

GAIA:

Not at all --

Here is the original post, which gives a lot of the background info, references and quotes (including, i must admit, one whose accuracy is currently at issue, whether it was quoted correctly; i'm in the process of checking that out with the original JD -- If you happen to have access to the JD, please do check the quotes for accuracy) , including the scriptural referenes that do (seem to) support the doctrine - http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...=10005&st=0

Post # 1;

And Post # 12 is the "explanations" post which addresses several of the most oft-repeated questions/ issues with the doctrine, inncluding the one about Michael-Adam being a PH office ather than a proper name, like "Christ" or "God", and the "death" of Adam --

Blessings --

~Gaia

Doctor Steuss · October 2, 2007

<div class='quotemain'>
I believe I missed that, but it sounds fascinating. I’ve never heard of “Michael” being a priesthood office (or at least I don't believe I have... my memory fails sometimes though). In a way I suppose it makes sense based on the roles of individual angels and their governing roles within Enochic literature. Mind hooking me up with a link to the specific post?

GAIA:

Not at all --

Here is the original post, which gives a lot of the background info, references and quotes (including, i must admit, one whose accuracy is currently at issue, whether it was quoted correctly; i'm in the process of checking that out with the original JD -- If you happen to have access to the JD, please do check the quotes for accuracy) , including the scriptural referenes that do (seem to) support the doctrine - http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...=10005&st=0

Post # 1;

And Post # 12 is the "explanations" post which addresses several of the most oft-repeated questions/ issues with the doctrine, inncluding the one about Michael-Adam being a PH office ather than a proper name, like "Christ" or "God", and the "death" of Adam --

Blessings --

~Gaia

Groovy. Thanks Gaia.

BTW, JoD is available online here.

snipe123 · October 3, 2007

<div class='quotemain'>
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...

GAIA:

Hi There, Isaac --

Not really -- let me explain a bit more.

That portion of the KFD to which i referred has to do with the eternal progression of the Gods. There are indeed many people who feel that the (D&C 132) scriptural term, "eternal lives" (please note the plural) is directly related to Adam-God, in that the latter tells just how (and why) those "eternal lives" are played out.

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

GAIA:

It is certainly your right and privilege to make that decision for YOURSELF -- as it is certianly the right and privilege of other Saints to take as their guidance, the many quotes from General Authorites that encourage the Saints to pray about and receive their OWN inspiration on everything, and be guided by the HOly Spirit in all things.

For example, Brigham Young said:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him.

I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way.

Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."

(JD 9:150)

If this doctrine were so important, it would still be taught openly, not religated to obscurity...

GAIA:

With all due respect, that's an obviously and demonstrably false premise: There are many reasons why doctrines which are true, may no longer be taught or practiced -- for example, Polygamy remains a doctrine of the Church, and we've been told by some GA's that it will once again be practiced by the Saints -- but anyone currently advocating or practicing it risks their membership. It is NOT currently not taught, because it's not true, or unimportant.....

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...

GAIA:

That's one of the frequently cited objections to the JD, however, it's important to rememeber several things:

1. Those scribes were not just idly recording their haphazard or incidental memories of lectures; they were trained, experienced scribes whose JOB itwas to make official notes;

2. Many of the addresses in the JD appeared first in other official publications of the Church -- including the Deseret News, Millennial Star, Juvenile INstructor, Women's Exponent, etc -- ; thus corrections could have and would have been made before they were printed in the JD;

3. And in fact, we have testimony from Apostle and then President Wilford Woodruff that indeed, Brigham Young had a chance to review the Journal of Discourses, and that he (Wilford Woodruff) had also reviewed his sermons, and that the reporting in the JD was accurate.

4. (then) President Brigham Young said:

I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 13: 95.)

5. Finally, there is the following letter which appears at the beginning of Volume 1 of the JD, over the signature of the First Presidency of the Church:

LETTER FROM THE FIRST PRESIDENCY.

Great Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, June 1, 1853.

Elder Samuel W. Richards, and the Saints abroad.

Dear Brethren--It is well known to many of you, that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography, which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures, &c., delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve, and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward. Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these Reports, in England, for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter. You will perceive at once that this will be a work of mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your co-operation in the purchase and sale of the above-named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt.

BRIGHAM YOUNG,

HEBER C. KIMBALL,

WILLARD RICHARDS,

First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Blessings --

~Gaia

There you go. And Brigham Young differentiated between G-d the Father and Michael in a few sermons.

GAIA:

As you may remember from previous messages in this thread, so did i -- i said they are two very different Priesthood Offices, with very different roles.

Blessings --

~Gaia

Gaia,

Are you a member of the church? Your answers are making you sound more like an apostate from the church, than an active member...I am not trying to criticize you, but your answers in a lot of cases are obviously not in line with the current prophets...What is your affiliation?

I am not saying we should not do our own thinking and praying etc...what I am saying is that I believe a current prophet is better qualified to interpret the words of another prophet than I am...and than you are...especially when you are not in line with what the church teaches on this subject...

I never said if this doctrine were true it would still be taught, I said that if it were "important" it would still be taught...the same can be said of polygamy...It may very well be practiced again some day, but right now it is not practiced...throughout time, it has been practiced or not practiced according to the direction of the Lord...those who are practicing it now, are not authorized to do so...that is why they are x'd...not because the church rejects it as a true principle, but as part of that priciple it must be done according to the Lords direction and not whenever a man decides it should be so...The Nephites took it upon themselves at one point to have more than one wife and they were condemned by a prophet of the Lord for doing so...That is the priciple you seem to forget...

So if there are other reasons why a true priciple might not be practiced, why do you think that This Adam-God Theory is no longer taught? I don't think you have said what your feelings are in regards to the reason for the change, on the subject...You have made much hay in quoting various people and articles but I have not seen what you personally think about why the teaching supposedly changed(though you obviously seem to accept the theory yourself) ...so spell it out for us Gaia...Answer this: Do you think the church has fallen into apostasy since they no longer teach this theory? Have our prophets led us astray and accordingly are no longer prophets? This is an pretty important issue if it is life eternal to know the only true God and Jesus whom he sent, then it would seem if our prophets (current) are somehow wrong on this subject as you seem to be implying(if not stating outright), then they are really leading us astray...So are they prophets or not? Will you answer this, or are you just posting all this stuff on here to knoock the ping pong ball back and forth as some sort of history game?

Gaia · October 3, 2007

Gaia,
Are you a member of the church? Your answers are making you sound more like an apostate from the church, than an active member...I am not trying to criticize you, but your answers in a lot of cases are obviously not in line with the current prophets...What is your affiliation?

GAIA:

First of all, i dunno why this need to pigeon-hole me. If i am a member of the church, would that (in and of itself) make my answers / thoughts any more valid, or comprehensible? If i am not, would that make them any less so?

Secondly, this notion that all members of the church would answer or post a particular way is seriously flawed. There are MANY ways of being LDS, Isaac. NOT all LDS think, feel, or beleive the same (set) way. In fact, in my nearly 20 years posting to internet LDS discussion groups (and whoever said this was the ONE AND ONLY LDS discussion group???? Not me) i've found that there are about as many different ways of being LDS as there are LDS -- and pretty much every one of them feels that their way is the "right" way -- at least, for them.

This need to ensure that everyone thinks and beleives the same way was NOT how JOseph Smith envisioned the religion he restored; in fact, when an old man was brought up on charges of teaching false doctrine, Joseph Smith said:

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." Or woman!

(Contributor, Vol 4: Oct 1882-Sep 1883 p 172-173)

Apostle Hugh B Brown:

"I should like to enter a plea for friendship, understanding, brotherhood and tolerance, all so badly needed in our confused and troubled world. In one of our Articles of Faith we claim for ourselves and freely accord to all men the untrammeled right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience."

Improvement Era, 1908:

But [the LDS Church] declares the inalienable rights of freedom of conscience and upholds the untrammeled agency of the individual in all matters of belief. In so far as the practice of anyone's faith and belief interferes with no other's freedom, "Mormonism" demands and defends individual liberty."

Then-Apostle Ezra T Benson, "Preaching the Princple of Freedom:"

"To Elder Benson, the battle for individual agency was all-important—and that which threatened freedom caught his wrath. He believed that the fight to preserve the God-given principle of agency and freedom was a matter of principle, not politics. Agency was central to the gospel. Should the children of God have untrammeled agency, or should they be coerced into following a predetermined path? This question had precipitated the war in heaven, and it was still causing conflict throughout the world."

"The central issue in that council, then, was: Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient? . . . The war that began in heaven is not yet over. The conflict continues on the battlefield of mortality."

Nevertheless, i assure you, I am a member of the Church, and have been for many years; I was baptized on EAster Sunday at BYU, many years ago (just exactly how many i prefer to keep private, as a matter of vanity regarding my age . I was married in the Temple. My Bishop (who is well acquainted with me and my ahem- individualistic -- ideas) and i are on good terms. In fact, i've frequently given him some of my posts to read. I have also explored a number of different spiritual paths -- for example, like Joseph Smith, i've studied Kabbalah

(See for example, www.gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm , and www.gnosis.org/ahp.htm

-- and found them to have wisdom and blessings for the sincere Seeker.

I am not saying we should not do our own thinking and praying etc...what I am saying is that I believe a current prophet is better qualified to interpret the words of another prophet than I am...and than you are...especially when you are not in line with what the church teaches on this subject...

GAIA:

As i think i said before, it's entirely your right to decide that for YOURSELF; it is not your right to decide that for anybody else.

As i've quoted to you before and i think is certainly worth repeating -- and Please actually READ it, prayerfully:

Brigham Young:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him.

I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way.

Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."

(JD 9:150)

Exactly what do you think i'm "teaching" here, anyway, Isaac?

Have i said anywhere that this doctrine should still be taught? Have i said anywhere that the current leaders are "wrong" for not currently teaching it? I don't think i have, and if you've somehow gotten that idea -- with all due respect, you are WRONG.

I did not even start the thread, or the discussion; I responded to a question about this teaching by another member of the group. NOWHERE have i said that it "should" be taught now, or that the leaders are "wrong" for not teaching it currently. In fact, i think i've implied just the opposite -- that they have some good reasons for not teaching it currently.

I think to go any further would be error, discretion is often wisdom. I've given the basic doctrine and answered some of the questions/ debates about it; i've also provided lots of references -- one of the best and most thorough is the book, "Adam-God: Doctrines Of The Restorations," Volume I by Craig L. Tholson; Publishment P.O. Box 151, Payson, UT 84651-0151.

I'd be happy to discuss this further with anyone who actually bothers to do some more research on the matter; otherwise, we're pretty much speaking different languages, and that would be folly, i think.

Blessings --

~Gaia

Moksha · October 3, 2007

<div class='quotemain'>
Gaia,
Are you a member of the church? Your answers are making you sound more like an apostate from the church, than an active member...I am not trying to criticize you, but your answers in a lot of cases are obviously not in line with the current prophets...What is your affiliation?

GAIA:

First of all, i dunno why this need to pigeon-hole me. If i am a member of the church, would that (in and of itself) make my answers / thoughts any more valid, or comprehensible? If i am not, would that make them any less so?

Blessings --

~Gaia

In the Original Star Trek Series, there was a world that worshipped a character called Landru, and the first question that the crew of the Enterprise was asked was, "Are you of the body?" or "Do you follow the will of Landru?"

So I ask you now Gaia, "What is your relationship with Landru"? Remember, I only accept Landru like answers. :sparklygrin:

Gaia · October 3, 2007

In the Original Star Trek Series, there was a world that worshipped a character called Landru, and the first question that the crew of the Enterprise was asked was, "Are you of the body?" or "Do you follow the will of Landru?"
So I ask you now Gaia, "What is your relationship with Landru"? Remember, I only accept Landru like answers.

GAIA:

LOL -- Are you NOT of the Body?!?!? !gasp! :wacko: :ph34r: :dontknow:

Snow · October 4, 2007

Secondly, this notion that all members of the church would answer or post a particular way is seriously flawed. There are MANY ways of being LDS, Isaac. NOT all LDS think, feel, or beleive the same (set) way. In fact, in my nearly 20 years posting to internet LDS discussion groups (and whoever said this was the ONE AND ONLY LDS discussion group???? Not me) i've found that there are about as many different ways of being LDS as there are LDS -- and pretty much every one of them feels that their way is the "right" way -- at least, for them.
This need to ensure that everyone thinks and beleives the same way was NOT how JOseph Smith envisioned the religion he restored; in fact, when an old man was brought up on charges of teaching false doctrine, Joseph Smith said:
"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." Or woman!
(Contributor, Vol 4: Oct 1882-Sep 1883 p 172-173)

That's a GROSS distortion of the truth. Joseph Smith's point was not that members should be allowed to publically preach FALSE doctrine and lead others into error.

... and by the way, it hasn't gone unnoticed that you are cutting and pasting your quotes from a rabid anti-Mormon website - not that the quotes are incorrect, just that we know where you take your cues from.

a-train · October 4, 2007

... and by the way, it hasn't gone unnoticed that you are cutting and pasting your quotes from a rabid anti-Mormon website - not that the quotes are incorrect, just that we know where you take your cues from.

Not as a diss to Gaia, but as a matter of fact, some of the quotes ARE tampered with.

For an example see post #11. The changing of wording and the convenient elipse popular among the antis on this particular quote were in Gaia's original quotation.

-a-train

Gaia · October 4, 2007

Hello A-Train and Other Parties interested in this discussion --

I've finally had the chance to check out the quote as A-Train requested, using both my own resource (I have a copy of the JD, as well as a number of other LDS references, on LDS disk) as well as the one A-

Train linked to --

Here's what i found:

A-TRAIN, PREVIOUSLY:

The antis ALWAYS change 'He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.' to 'He was not begotten of the Holy Ghost.' They then use it to attempt to show that Brigham contradicted the words of the angel to Joseph in Matthew 1:20: 'that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost'.

GAIA:

Yes, the original does say "'He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.;

While the quote i used in post # 1 did indeed say: "He was not begotten of the Holy Ghost".

I don't think it's as much an issue as A-Train seems to think, but it does indicate two things:

1. The source i used for my quote was not the original;

2. The word "by" was changed to "of".

I think i know how the discrepancy occurred.

As i've already told A-Train in a private message, i don't NEED to use "anti-Mormon" sites for quotes because i happen to OWN the "GospeLink 2001" Program -- ( http://gospelink.com/ ) -- a three-disk program produced by the LDS Church, which has all the LDS scriptures plus many LDS books and pretty much all the LDS periodicals that were ever published. I obtained this in 2003, as a "perk" for joining the Deseret Book Club, when they were giving the program to people who joined that Club for a nominal fee of about $5.

I keep and archive pretty much every article i write (among other things, i'm a writer, i've written for the Ensign). Evidently, i mixed in some of the (earlier) research material from "Adam-God", with the article i later wrote on the topic and from which i posted most of Post #1.

I'm glad A-Train caught that and i've already made the change to the archived material on my computer -- Thanks A-Train, for your sharp eye.

Now the question is, how much of difference does it make to the entire meaning of the piece?

A-TRAIN PREVIOUSLY:

A more popular change to the text here is the ommission of the statement: 'It 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.' with the good ol' dot-dot-dot.

GAIA:

As i've said before, the use of elipses is a perfectly acceptable one when quoting long passages, to shorten them and exclude extraneous, irrelevant material.

A-Train evidently thinks that the sentence left out was relevant, i don't.

I further think the subsequent events JUSTIFIED my efforts to shorten the quote, since i got comments about the length of the post and -- more to the point -- it's evident that many people didn't bother to read SEVERAL of my posts in their entirety, because several people asked questions or raised issues that were previously covered in those posts.

NOw, let's address the subject of whether the essential meaning of the original address was changed in any way.

READ the ADDRESS. I beg everyone to just READ THE ADDRESS, and tell me whether i've misrepresented what Brigham Young said. Here is a quote from the relevant paragraph, taken directly from that address -- no elipses -- to let you see what it actually says:

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 [emphasis added], 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 andour GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do [emphasis added].

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 forman; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the 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 [emphasis added]; 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 ofthe 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. [emphasis added] However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era;and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming" great is the mystery of godliness," and tell nothing. ((Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51 1854)

Please note what Brigham said about HIM being accused of Blasphemy --

A-TRAIN PREVIOUSLY:

They conveniently leave that out and then go on to quote a following statement in his discourse: '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 clearly he had just mentioned 'Eloheim' in the quorum that organized the earth only three sentences earlier. They want us to think he is referring to Michael, but it is more plausible that he is referring to 'Eloheim'.

Further, if Eloheim is Michael, why does Brigham make any distinction? He said they were 'three distinct characters' The antis ALWAYS therefore leave that sentence out because it ruins their whole assertion.

GAIA:

Michael IS identified in other addresses as "one of the Elohim" -- one of the Gods.

Brigham makes the distinction because, as i've said, they are NOT proper names, they are two very different Priesthood Offices, with very different roles, authority, power, responsibilities, and obligations.

A-TRAIN PREVIOUSLY:

Can we please try to make sure these anti-tactics are NOT perpetuated here?

GAIA:

I think to label this as an "anti-tactic" is a bit much. You may see it that way, but i assure you no such "tactic" was intended on my part.

I think the rest of what i've written throughout this and the other threads on the topic, has more than proven:

a) that there certainly was a teaching called "Adam-God", in which Brigham and other GA's taught that Adam was an exalted, divine being when he came to the garden, that he and his wife Eve who came from "the planet on which they lived, were faithful, honored the Priesthood, received their crown and exaltation" -- came here to "have the privilege of giving "my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh" (Deseret News, June 18, 1873)

B) That i've accurately portrayed the essential meaning and intention of this doctrine as it was taught by nearly every General Authority of the Church over a period of more than a quarter-century, both here and abroad, over the pulpit (includig General Conferences), in official publications of the Church, and in the Temple during the presidencies of FOUR prophets of the Church.

c) I've said NOTHING about whether this doctrine "should" be taught now, or about the propriety of current LDS leaders not teaching it currently.

I hope that clarifies any questions -- Sorry you had to wait so long for it!

Blessings --

~Gaia

snipe123 · October 4, 2007

<div class='quotemain'>
Gaia,
Are you a member of the church? Your answers are making you sound more like an apostate from the church, than an active member...I am not trying to criticize you, but your answers in a lot of cases are obviously not in line with the current prophets...What is your affiliation?

GAIA:

First of all, i dunno why this need to pigeon-hole me. If i am a member of the church, would that (in and of itself) make my answers / thoughts any more valid, or comprehensible? If i am not, would that make them any less so?

I am not pigeon-holing anyone...I was asking you a question about your current membership standing...to me it is a valid question since you are stating this "doctrine" as a fact of former LDS teaching etc...

Secondly, this notion that all members of the church would answer or post a particular way is seriously flawed. There are MANY ways of being LDS, Isaac. NOT all LDS think, feel, or beleive the same (set) way. In fact, in my nearly 20 years posting to internet LDS discussion groups (and whoever said this was the ONE AND ONLY LDS discussion group???? Not me) i've found that there are about as many different ways of being LDS as there are LDS -- and pretty much every one of them feels that their way is the "right" way -- at least, for them.

I did not express the notion that everyone had to post the same way, nor did I say that all LDS people think the same way or that there are not individual beliefs held that differ from person to person...nor did I say this was the "...only discussion group..." Despite the fact that there are varying beliefs on certain doctrines, there are in fact established doctrines that are either true or false...Their validity is not based on opinion, but actual truths...

This need to ensure that everyone thinks and beleives the same way was NOT how JOseph Smith envisioned the religion he restored; in fact, when an old man was brought up on charges of teaching false doctrine, Joseph Smith said:

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." Or woman!

(Contributor, Vol 4: Oct 1882-Sep 1883 p 172-173)

This is a common quote often cited...Joseph was correctly stating that people are not to be kicked out of the church, or called befor edisciplinary councils for believing false doctrine...He did not say that they cannot be kicked out of the church for PREACHING false doctrine or leading people into error...that is entirely different...I probably believe some things not strictly defined by the church but I keep those things to myelf...were i to be found teaching something counter to the established truths of The Gospel, I may very well be kicked out depending on what they are I suppose...whether that is what you are doing or not, I have no idea...that is why I was asking the question...I wanted to know if you thought the church had fallen into apostasy etc...

Apostle Hugh B Brown:

"I should like to enter a plea for friendship, understanding, brotherhood and tolerance, all so badly needed in our confused and troubled world. In one of our Articles of Faith we claim for ourselves and freely accord to all men the untrammeled right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience."

Improvement Era, 1908:

But [the LDS Church] declares the inalienable rights of freedom of conscience and upholds the untrammeled agency of the individual in all matters of belief. In so far as the practice of anyone's faith and belief interferes with no other's freedom, "Mormonism" demands and defends individual liberty."

Then-Apostle Ezra T Benson, "Preaching the Princple of Freedom:"

"To Elder Benson, the battle for individual agency was all-important—and that which threatened freedom caught his wrath. He believed that the fight to preserve the God-given principle of agency and freedom was a matter of principle, not politics. Agency was central to the gospel. Should the children of God have untrammeled agency, or should they be coerced into following a predetermined path? This question had precipitated the war in heaven, and it was still causing conflict throughout the world."

"The central issue in that council, then, was: Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient? . . . The war that began in heaven is not yet over. The conflict continues on the battlefield of mortality."

Yep, and they can choose evil...the church does not disallow someone from believing whatever they want...but none of these statements give people the license to teach whatever they want especially when these things contradict the teachings of living prophets...

Nevertheless, i assure you, I am a member of the Church, and have been for many years; I was baptized on EAster Sunday at BYU, many years ago (just exactly how many i prefer to keep private, as a matter of vanity regarding my age . I was married in the Temple. My Bishop (who is well acquainted with me and my ahem- individualistic -- ideas) and i are on good terms. In fact, i've frequently given him some of my posts to read. I have also explored a number of different spiritual paths -- for example, like Joseph Smith, i've studied Kabbalah

(See for example, www.gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm , and www.gnosis.org/ahp.htm

-- and found them to have wisdom and blessings for the sincere Seeker.

I am glad you are a member and that you find good in other schools of thought...I too, find truths in other belief systems...Having said that, I use the restored Gospel as my measuring rod by which I accept a thing as true or false from those other teachings...Not saying that you don't necessarily...

I am not saying we should not do our own thinking and praying etc...what I am saying is that I believe a current prophet is better qualified to interpret the words of another prophet than I am...and than you are...especially when you are not in line with what the church teaches on this subject...

GAIA:

As i think i said before, it's entirely your right to decide that for YOURSELF; it is not your right to decide that for anybody else.

I was not deciding anything for you...I was not dictating to you what you can or cannot believe! I was asking you to clarify your possition and where you stand in regard to your feelings about the current teachings/leadership of the church on the nature of God...Both teachings cannot be right...

As i've quoted to you before and i think is certainly worth repeating -- and Please actually READ it, prayerfully:

Brigham Young:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him.

I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way.

Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."

(JD 9:150)

I agree with Brigham Youngs statement...this is why I was asking if you believe in the current prophetic calling of the leaders of the church, or do you believe they fall into the category of leadership that Brigham is cautioning us against? Is this not a reasonable question?If that is to personal a question, then I apologize...

Exactly what do you think i'm "teaching" here, anyway, Isaac?

While you are not formally teaching a lesson, you are posting information which is teaching people that the Adam-God theory (or whatever you want to call it)is correct and a historical doctrine accepted by the church...you may say you are not trying to persuade anyone, in fact you have invited them to pray about the info presented from a variety of sources, but the information you post is not in harmony with current church leadership...

Have i said anywhere that this doctrine should still be taught? Have i said anywhere that the current leaders are "wrong" for not currently teaching it? I don't think i have, and if you've somehow gotten that idea -- with all due respect, you are WRONG.

That is exactly what I was saying...I had not seen anywhere where you had said that the current leadership was wrong, but based on the fact that you believe the "former" Adam-God doctrine to be correct, then by implication, the current leadership cannot be correct...it cannot be both...so I was asking why you think the teaching has changed, and by extension, what your feelings are about the current leadership...If you don't know why, that's fine, I just wanted to know if you had a particular opinion...

I did not even start the thread, or the discussion; I responded to a question about this teaching by another member of the group. NOWHERE have i said that it "should" be taught now, or that the leaders are "wrong" for not teaching it currently. In fact, i think i've implied just the opposite -- that they have some good reasons for not teaching it currently.

You did not have to start the thread...you commented on it and I asked some legitimate questions about what you were saying, and seemed to be implying...I don't see how you can believe this doctrine and still believe that the current leadership of the church is not in error when they state very clearly that this idea is heresy...You can't have it both ways...either the current leadership is in error for not teaching this doctrine and proclaiming it as heresy, or you are wrong...If they had been silent on the subject then one might argue that it is a teaching that is no longer openly discussed like polygamy for example...They have not been neutral on the subject...they have openly spoken against it...If you don't want to answer the question, I guess that's up to you and I cannot, nor would I try to force you to answer it...

I think to go any further would be error, discretion is often wisdom. I've given the basic doctrine and answered some of the questions/ debates about it; i've also provided lots of references -- one of the best and most thorough is the book, "Adam-God: Doctrines Of The Restorations," Volume I by Craig L. Tholson; Publishment P.O. Box 151, Payson, UT 84651-0151.

I'd be happy to discuss this further with anyone who actually bothers to do some more research on the matter; otherwise, we're pretty much speaking different languages, and that would be folly, i think.

That I have a different opinion than you do, does not mean that I have not researched the issue...I do not have the book you mentioned, but when I actually had the Journal of Discourses I did examined the topic at length and have read numerous articles and published papers on the subject...

Blessings --

~Gaia

Isaac

CrimsonKairos · October 4, 2007

Gaia must never have learned about Pandora's Law:

Never open a box you didn't close.

Gaia · October 5, 2007

I did not express the notion that everyone had to post the same way, nor did I say that all LDS people think the same way or that there are not individual beliefs held that differ from person to person...nor did I say this was the "...only discussion group..." Despite the fact that there are varying beliefs on certain doctrines, there are in fact established doctrines that are either true or false...Their validity is not based on opinion, but actual truths...

GAIA:

I'm sorry Isaac, but with all due respect, i think you're quibbling / splitting hairs, here. I think that the presupposition that my church membership matters, indicates an assumption that if i were LDS, i would answer or address this topic one way, while if i were not LDS, i would address it another way.

This is a common quote often cited...Joseph was correctly stating that people are not to be kicked out of the church, or called befor edisciplinary councils for believing false doctrine...He did not say that they cannot be kicked out of the church for PREACHING false doctrine or leading people into error...that is entirely different...I probably believe some things not strictly defined by the church but I keep those things to myelf...were i to be found teaching something counter to the established truths of The Gospel, I may very well be kicked out depending on what they are I suppose...whether that is what you are doing or not, I have no idea...that is why I was asking the question...I wanted to know if you thought the church had fallen into apostasy etc...

GAIA:

I disagree; Joseph clearly said that HE DID NOT LIKE the old man being called up for erring in doctrine" -- that's expressing a personal preference, not citing church doctrine. He also said, "I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please." That's a basic right both within and outside of the Church.

Furthermore, and in answer to several statements that have been made here, he said that "It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine". IOW, If i had been "erring", Joseph Smith says that would NOT make me worthy of the kind of ad hominem attacks that have been used by a few folks here.

Yep, and they can choose evil...the church does not disallow someone from believing whatever they want...but none of these statements give people the license to teach whatever they want especially when these things contradict the teachings of living prophets...

GAIA:

Oh, I agree -- and when "teaching" a class in any Church venue, i would not discuss this matter. But a public online discussion group is hardly a "church venue" -- no matter who might try to make it such.

That is exactly what I was saying...I had not seen anywhere where you had said that the current leadership was wrong, but based on the fact that you believe the "former" Adam-God doctrine to be correct,

GAIA:

Woah there --- Again, please go back and actually read what i've written. Where did i say that "i beleive the A-G doctrine to be "correct"?

On the contrary, i beleive i said (in Post # 12) that "I don't necessarily personally accept this doctrine as absolute truth; but i do think it has some real beauty and wisdom." And that was the extent of my personal reactions to it.

Since it was taught by General Authorities of the Church and in the Temple for over 25 years, i would hope i would be able to find in it "some real beauty and wisdom".

I really wish people would actually READ what i WRITE. There's a reason for those looooong posts; they have important information.

Blessings --

~Gaia

a-train · October 5, 2007

Michael IS identified in other addresses as "one of the Elohim" -- one of the Gods.
Brigham makes the distinction because, as i've said, they are NOT proper names, they are two very different Priesthood Offices, with very different roles, authority, power, responsibilities, and obligations.

OK, but we are talking about this address NOT other addresses. In this address, he didn't say 'Michael, one of the Elohim'. He said 'three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum'. And what difference does it make that they are pronouns or offices? They are still three distinct characters. I don't see how the Priesthood Office designation permits us to assume that one Being stood in the offices of Eloheim and Michael simultaneously in that quorum. Is your assertion that this was the case?

there certainly was a teaching called "Adam-God", in which Brigham and other GA's taught that Adam was an exalted, divine being when he came to the garden, that he and his wife Eve who came from "the planet on which they lived, were faithful, honored the Priesthood, received their crown and exaltation" -- came here to "have the privilege of giving "my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh" (Deseret News, June 18, 1873)

Now this is different from the 'Adam is Elohim' teaching. Are you saying that your understanding of 'Adam-God' is NOT that Adam/Michael is Elohim? There is a BIG difference there.

Do you see what I am asking? In other words, do you understand the teaching of Brigham Young to mean that there exists the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and Michael/Adam? Or do you think he was teaching there exists only the Father/Michael/Adam, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? This is crucial to the whole matter.

-a-train

pam · October 5, 2007

<div class='quotemain'>
I did not express the notion that everyone had to post the same way, nor did I say that all LDS people think the same way or that there are not individual beliefs held that differ from person to person...nor did I say this was the "...only discussion group..." Despite the fact that there are varying beliefs on certain doctrines, there are in fact established doctrines that are either true or false...Their validity is not based on opinion, but actual truths...

GAIA:

I'm sorry Isaac, but with all due respect, i think you're quibbling / splitting hairs, here. I think that the presupposition that my church membership matters, indicates an assumption that if i were LDS, i would answer or address this topic one way, while if i were not LDS, i would address it another way.

This is a common quote often cited...Joseph was correctly stating that people are not to be kicked out of the church, or called befor edisciplinary councils for believing false doctrine...He did not say that they cannot be kicked out of the church for PREACHING false doctrine or leading people into error...that is entirely different...I probably believe some things not strictly defined by the church but I keep those things to myelf...were i to be found teaching something counter to the established truths of The Gospel, I may very well be kicked out depending on what they are I suppose...whether that is what you are doing or not, I have no idea...that is why I was asking the question...I wanted to know if you thought the church had fallen into apostasy etc...

GAIA:

I disagree; Joseph clearly said that HE DID NOT LIKE the old man being called up for erring in doctrine" -- that's expressing a personal preference, not citing church doctrine. He also said, "I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please." That's a basic right both within and outside of the Church.

Furthermore, and in answer to several statements that have been made here, he said that "It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine". IOW, If i had been "erring", Joseph Smith says that would NOT make me worthy of the kind of ad hominem attacks that have been used by a few folks here.

Yep, and they can choose evil...the church does not disallow someone from believing whatever they want...but none of these statements give people the license to teach whatever they want especially when these things contradict the teachings of living prophets...

GAIA:

Oh, I agree -- and when "teaching" a class in any Church venue, i would not discuss this matter. But a public online discussion group is hardly a "church venue" -- no matter who might try to make it such.

That is exactly what I was saying...I had not seen anywhere where you had said that the current leadership was wrong, but based on the fact that you believe the "former" Adam-God doctrine to be correct,

GAIA:

Woah there --- Again, please go back and actually read what i've written. Where did i say that "i beleive the A-G doctrine to be "correct"?

On the contrary, i beleive i said (in Post # 12) that "I don't necessarily personally accept this doctrine as absolute truth; but i do think it has some real beauty and wisdom." And that was the extent of my personal reactions to it.

Since it was taught by General Authorities of the Church and in the Temple for over 25 years, i would hope i would be able to find in it "some real beauty and wisdom".

I really wish people would actually READ what i WRITE. There's a reason for those looooong posts; they have important information.

Blessings --

~Gaia

Perhaps one of the reasons people don't actually read what you write is because of those "looooooong" posts.

Gaia · October 5, 2007

Perhaps one of the reasons people don't actually read what you write is because of those "looooooong" posts.

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 :dontknow: ; 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

pam · October 5, 2007

<div class='quotemain'>
Perhaps one of the reasons people don't actually read what you write is because of those "looooooong" posts.

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 :dontknow: ; 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

Understood

Gaia · October 7, 2007

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;

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;

* * *

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

Snow · October 7, 2007

may I ask you a couple questions Gaia?
-where are you getting your materials? Do ya have actual books, official records, or are they coming from an unofficial site somewhere.
-do you visit anti-mormon sites?
Now many are clever to say they got it directly from the source, but if they are still historically "secondary sources" No matter how, verbatim they are copied, or cut and pasted.

Gaia claims to have or have had access to superior information and materials, secret materials that we rank and filers can't see. I'm not joking - that's what she claims.

As for the stuff she is posting (Craig L. Tholson's, "Adam-God", "Doctrines Of The Restorations Volume I, I assume) - There are a couple of guys, some of them fundamentalists and such that self-publish material they supposedly gleam from early LDS sources. They or some of them publish in stapled papers off the copier machine,

Annabelli · October 7, 2007

In several of the post on this thread, many have asked you to post your references.

As an example of what they want: (removed)

It is obvious that those who list their religious preferences are respected by others in this forum.

People are just asking for some honesty.

Sign In

Questions Re "adam-god"

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Announcements