Curious Meeting

[mikbone]

Over the years while I was doing some research I ran into an interesting meeting.

Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the Twelve in the prayer room of the Church Historian's Office, April 5, 1860

I recently went to the LDS Church History Library in attempt to review the original document but it was unavailable.   The delayed response for my request was the following, "We have located these minutes but are unable to provide access due to their confidential nature. Thank you for your request, and good luck with your research."  The above image is documentation that the meeting occurred, but does not include the actual minutes.  

The best source for the meeting, I found in a book by James Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum.  Wherein Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had differences in points of doctrine.  Apparently Bergera had access to the source material decades ago before it was moved into a more secure location.  Anyway, the following text is the meeting from what I gather from the internet and from Bergera's book.

It is important to know that Brigham Young was not present at the Meeting.  I got the feeling that Brigham Young was quite exasperated with dealing with Orson Pratt and wanted the other Apostles to assist Orson Pratt to come to his senses.  It is obvious that Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had differences in option on esoteric points of doctrine, and neither one of them was willing to admit their error. 

 

Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the Twelve in the prayer room of the Church Historian's Office, April 5, 1860, Present Elders - O. Hyde, O. Pratt, W. Woodruff, G.A. Smith, J. Taylor, E. Snow, C.C. Rich, E.T. Benson, F.D. Richards.  Thomas Bullock acting as scribe.

O. Hyde   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.

W Woodruff   If bro. Pratt has taught a false doctrine, it is no worse for him, than me, or bro. Hyde, and should retract when a man takes a stubborn course, all Israel feels it; I desire that he may right that matter up.  The moment we launch out into the unrevealed doctrine, we are liable to get into error bro. Pratt ought to make the thing right with Pres. Young.

O. Hyde   Who is our Heavenly Father.  I would as soon it was Father Adam, or any other good and lawful being. I shall see him some time, if I do right. What do I know about Adam, in the Councils of the Great God before he came here, or his privileges. I dont know.

O. Pratt   I do not see how I can mend the matter, one way or the other. I think the brethren are laboring under a wrong impression, in all of my writings on doctrine, I have tried to confine myself within revelation. I do not remember one item that I consider new, many of the exceptions what I made last night, are not in writing. On my subject of pre-existence, I have quoted largely from Genesis and the Book of Abraham, I have give it, how Adam and Eve came here and took bodies of flesh and bones, the doctrine was in the Church when I came into it, and I have always rejoiced in it, in regard to Adam being our Father and our God, I have not published it, altho' I frankly say, I have no confidence in it, altho advanced by bro. Kimball in the stand, and afterwards approved by bro. Brigham. . . . One [revelation] says Adam was formed out of the Earth, and the Lord put in his spirit; and another that he came with his body, flesh and bones, thus there are two contrary revelations - in the garden it is said, that a voice said to Adam, in the meridian of time, I will send my only begotten son Jesus Christ. then how can that man and Adam both be the Father of Jesus Christ?

O. Hyde   When there is a want of union, it requires us to speak plain, bro. Pratt does not claim any vision or revelation, but keeps within the scope of Joseph's revelations. The Universalians have their belief, The Presbyterians do the same, they consider they believe they are in the pale of revealed religion. all the Sects do the same, yet how widely they differ, then here comes a man (B.Y.) who says he has a revelation, but it means the sects, if is Antagonistic. I see no necessity of rejecting Joseph's revelations, or going to War with the living ones, that is the nearest to us. bro. Pratt is like the Jews, who garnish the sepulchers of the dead, but reject those that were the nearest to them. I do not see any contradiction or opposition between B. Young & J. Smith.

O. Pratt   it was the Father of Jesus Christ that was talking to Adam in the garden - B. Young says that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ, both of his Spirit and Body, in his teachings from the stand, bro. Richards publishes in the Pearl of Great Price, that another person would come in the meridian of time, which was Jesus Christ.

O. Hyde  David in spirit called Jesus Christ, Lord, how then is he his Son? it would seem a contradiction, I went to Joseph and told him my ideas of the Omnipresence of the Spirit, he said it was very pretty, and it was got up very nice, and is a beautiful doctrine, but it only lacks one thing, I enquired what is it bro Joseph, he replied it is not true.

 J. Taylor   spoke again "if Christ is the first fruits of them that slept" there must be some discrepancy, he must have resumed his position, having a legitimate claim to a possession some where else, he ought not to be debarred from his rights. the power of God was sufficient to resuscitate Jesus immediately, and also the body of Adam.

O. Pratt  I have heard brother Brigham say that Adam is the Father of our Spirits, and he came here with his 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, even if it were not sustained by revelation.

E. Snow   Is there any revelation saying that the body of Adam should return to the dust of this Earth?

O. Pratt   if you bring Adam as a Spirit, and put him into the tabernacle, runs easy with me; another item, I heard brother Young say that Jesus had a body, flesh and bones, before he came, he was born of the Virgin Mary, it was so contrary to every revelation given.

Edited January 21, 2019 by mikbone

[Guest]

Sounds like Brigham made a mistake.

[mikbone]

i really love the Orson Hyde quote.

[wenglund]

What I find significant is that the informal conversation was in the context of a private meeting, rather than over the pulpit or printed as a message in official material, and didn't include two key parties (Joseph and Brigham) needed to correct, clarify, or argue for their alleged positions. 

But, when one is intent on promoting ideas at odds with mainstream beliefs of the Church, sometimes brief and private challenges to cryptic hearsay is the best one can offer.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[mikbone]

On 1/21/2019 at 8:42 PM, wenglund said:

What I find significant is that the informal conversation was in the context of a private meeting, rather than over the pulpit or printed as a message in official material, and didn't include two key parties (Joseph and Brigham) needed to correct, clarify, or argue for their alleged positions. 

But, when one is intent on promoting ideas at odds with mainstream beliefs of the Church, sometimes brief and private challenges to cryptic hearsay is the best one can offer.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Joseph was martyred 16 years prior.

Brigham had previously argued his point with Orson Pratt, but that apparently made Orson Pratt more obstinate. Sometimes it is wise to just step away from a battle and let others take up the fight in our stead.

The outcome of this meeting was beneficial.  Orson Pratt chose to fall in line and stopped challenging the the Prophet. Even though time has likely proven that on this single point of doctrine - Orson Pratt was in the right.  Although Orson Pratt had taught multiple concepts of incorrect doctrine in the past...

Eventually, this document and many more will come to light.  The church is doing amazing things with transparency.  

Edited January 23, 2019 by mikbone

[wenglund]

11 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Joseph was martyred 16 years prior.

Brigham had previously argued his point with Orson Pratt, but that apparently made Orson Pratt more obstinate.  Sometimes it is wise to just step away from a battle and let others take up the fight in our stead.

The outcome of this meeting was beneficial.  Orson Pratt chose to fall in line and stopped challenging the the Prophet.  Even though time has likely proven that on this single point of doctrine - Orson Pratt was in the right.  Although Orson Pratt had taught multiple concepts of incorrect doctrine in the past...

Eventually, this documents and many more will come to light.  The church is doing amazing things with transparency.  

I appreciate you underscoring my point.

And, while the publishing of early church documents by the church is intended for good, it is hoped that they won't be misused today to promote, in public, private beliefs that not only run contrary to modern mainstream JoJCoLDS beliefs, but died in the past under the lack of volition.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Just_A_Guy]

The dialog seems to allude to a new “revelation” from Brigham Young alluding to events in the garden.  One wonders whether the text of that revelation still exists. 

[mikbone]

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The dialog seems to allude to a new “revelation” from Brigham Young alluding to events in the garden.  One wonders whether the text of that revelation still exists. 

I concur.

I haven’t seen it.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, mikbone said:

I concur.

I haven’t seen it.

Not the specific text of a revelation written in D&C style, but I have seen the revelation as per how it was presented at an earlier point in my life.

Some aspects of it were also given at a time and place in the Temple (not an official part of an ordinance done there so not officially incorporated from what I understand), but as things done in the Temple are normally Holy, we won't really go there or get into that.

Ironically, there are church resources out there, even CURRENT AND MODERN ones that indicate that those who have inherited a Celestial reward and a body of flesh and bones can return to this world and earth and in some cases even participate in the actions of mortality. 

I have noticed this (and if you pay close attention, you may catch onto this as there are things that physically spirits cannot do, but that physical bodies can...but I am not really free to discuss specifically where you can see or find these indications) and at times it led to great perplexity on my part as it seemed contrary to what I knew.

I realized that in the eternities, things are eternal.  They CANNOT change.  If one wants change, they must go to a place where change can occur.  In such a place (such as our mortality) change is constant.  Everything changes (even the cells of our bodies) constantly.  Thus, even things that can be eternal can be changed in it's status in this world of mortality for the eternal world beyond (and as such why we do physical ordinances for the dead while here on this earth rather than let the dead do it).

That said, it still is little more than thoughts on the matter rather than any set opinion on the validity of it's usage.

The bigger question is whether it is meant literally or figuratively.  Many would say these things are merely figurative, while I am normally more of a literalist. 

Which means, I don't have all the answers.  I suppose we'll find out in the here after.  It is not important to our salvation, though if it is important for us to know, eventually we will find out (more likely later after death rather than earlier prior to death).