Question concerning “Continuing Revelation”

[Maverick]

11 hours ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

I think there was quite a bit of too much, too fast in early Utah.

Brigham Young admitted that he may have been guilty of saying too much about who God is, as the Saints weren’t ready for it. 

11 hours ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

With the easily crisised© in our day, I see the wisdom of pulling back and being more milk-oriented in official teachings.

I see the wisdom in this as well. And I think this is exactly what we’re seeing.

11 hours ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

But the great thing about our religion is you can let your mind soar in your private musings and with those equally interested in the "deeper things" of God.

It’s nice that the church is more tolerant of this now, as long as you don’t try to publicly teach controversial things like Adam-God as official church doctrine or try to disparage current church leaders for not openly teaching the mysteries anymore. 

[Maverick]

On 4/20/2024 at 7:27 PM, askandanswer said:

What I'm suggesting is the teaching of additional light and truth to those who have already demonstrated an ability to discern truth from error does not generally cause the sort of reactions that you claim were caused by teaching the Adam-God theory. 

I don’t believe that the general church membership had demonstrated the ability to discern truth from error beyond recognizing the truthfulness of the restored gospel in general. Speaking of these same people, Joseph Smith had said:

“[T]here has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand.

I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen.” (Jan. 20, 1844.) DHC 6:183-185.

On 4/20/2024 at 7:27 PM, askandanswer said:

So that raises a question in my mind as to whether what was taught was indeed light and truth. It doesn't seem to be quite consistent with Doctrine and Covenants 88:40

Many church members received the Adam-God teaching with gladness and considered it to be light and truth revealed from heaven. This included apostles like Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Franklin D. Richards. 

Others had difficulty accepting it as it went against their traditions. 

[Maverick]

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Links?

You can read pretty much any of Brigham Young’s talks and you’ll see that he switches topics frequently within his talks. 

As for the particular discourse in question, this is what several men who were in attendance recorded:

Journal of Wilford Woodruff

Our Father begot all the spirits that were before any tabernacle was made. When our Father came into the Garden He came with his Celestial body & brought one of his wives with him and ate of the fruit of the Garden until He could beget a Tabernacle. And Adam is Michael God and all the God that we have anything to do with. They ate of this fruit & formed the first Tabernacle that was formed. And when the Virgin Mary was begotten with child it was by the Father and in no other way only as we were begotten. I will tell you the truth as it is in God. The world don't know that Jesus Christ our Elder Brother was begotten by our Father in Heaven.  Handle it as you please, it will either seal the damnation or salvation of man. He was begotten by the Father & not by the Holy Ghost. 

(More to this quote)

Journal of Hosea Stout 2:435

Another meeting this evening. President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us. That he came to this world in a resurrected body, etc.  

                                                                        Friday 4/9/1852

Lorenzo Brown Journal 

Meeting at 9 A.M. All male members met at 6 P.M. House full. President Young preached some new doctrine respecting Adam etc. Excellent discourse I thought. 

                                                                    Friday 4/16/1852

Journal of Samuel Holister Rogers 1:179

Conference commenced on the 6 and continued until the 11, it was held in the new tabernacle, adjourned until the 6 of next October We had the best Conference that I ever attended during the time of the Conference President Brigham Young said that our spirits ware begotten before that Adam came to the Earth and that Adam helped to make the Earth, that he had a Celestial body when he came to the Earth and that he brought his wife or one of his wives with him, and that Eave was also a Celestial being, that they eat of the fruit of the ground until they begat children from the Earth, he said that Adam was the only God that we would have, and that Christ was not begotten of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father Adam, that Christ, was our elder brother. 

 

[Carborendum]

5 hours ago, Maverick said:

You can read pretty much any of Brigham Young’s talks and you’ll see that he switches topics frequently within his talks. 

So, no link?

[Maverick]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, no link?

https://journalofdiscourses.com/Brigham_Young
 

 

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

https://journalofdiscourses.com/Brigham_Young

Uhmm... Gee... Thanks...

[Maverick]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Uhmm... Gee... Thanks...

You’re welcome. 😉 

[zil2]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Uhmm... Gee... Thanks...

This one seems more useful:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

[Carborendum]

9 minutes ago, zil2 said:

This one seems more useful:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

Not really.

I was looking for (as Mav claimed) specific examples of Young's tendency to jump back and forth between topics without preamble or segue.  I've read through the JoD and never noticed this tendency anywhere besides the A-G theory.  It was so unusual that I distinctly remember the first time I ever read it, thinking,"This is really strange.  Where did that come from?  It has nothing to do with the topic he was just talking about.  It came out of left field."

Then when he was done with that, he seemed to pickup right where he left off.  Literally, if you plucked A-G out of the discourse, it would seem like a perfectly seamless discourse.  No other changes required.

I have seen many times that speakers (incl. Young) would make a statement that he would give a little background that was tangentially related.  And that background was necessary to understand the next section of the original topic.  

To some, this seems like jumping around.  I don't because that is the way I do some discourses myself.

But none of the discourses I've seen was as stark as A-G. None of them made me get whiplash from simply reading it. A-G did.

That is why I believe there was some sort of mistake with this record, as well as the way people heard it.

Edited April 22 by Carborendum

[Maverick]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I believe there was some sort of mistake with this record, as well as the way people heard it.

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

[Carborendum]

6 minutes ago, Maverick said:

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

That doesn't answer the initial question I had.  Why is the record speech the way it is? 

That simply isn't a complete record. 

And without the complete record, any snippets,. secondhand quotes, etc.  simply are not sufficient for us to figure out what the heck he was saying.

I'd hate to think what people might think about many things I said without proper background.

[ZealoulyStriving]

At this juncture, maybe it would be appropriate to open a new topic addressing Adam/God?

[Maverick]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That doesn't answer the initial question I had.  Why is the record speech the way it is? 

That simply isn't a complete record. 

And without the complete record, any snippets,. secondhand quotes, etc.  simply are not sufficient for us to figure out what the heck he was saying.

I'd hate to think what people might think about many things I said without proper background.

How do you know that we don’t have a complete record of the discourse in question? 

And what about the dozens of similar statements by Brigham Young and others over the next 25+ years?

[Maverick]

On 4/22/2024 at 7:51 AM, ZealoulyStriving said:

At this juncture, maybe it would be appropriate to open a new topic addressing Adam/God?

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

Edited April 27 by Maverick
On second thought, I’m going to hold off for now.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

specific examples of Young's tendency to jump back and forth between topics without preamble or segue

Oh, right.  I got side-tracked.  Nevermind. Sorry.

[Carborendum]

21 hours ago, Maverick said:

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

You still haven't provided any links to specific examples.  You made the claim.  You need to back it up.

But let's assume you're correct (you could be).  That is by no means an indication.  I'll give you an example.

Did you know that for many years people thought Joseph had the First Vision at 15 (16th year of age) rather than 14?  True.  This was because of a side note that the scribe (Fredrick G. Williams) wrote as a superscript in the 1832 account.  As far as we know, Joseph never spoke those words.

Yet that version was widely circulated saying "15 years old."  Virtually everyone believed it and everyone repeated it.

But with so many other versions (which were less popular for a while) saying 14 years, it was eventually corrected among the common membership.

So, mistakes can happen en masse a lot more often than people like to admit.  Just look at mainstream Christianity.  And, yes, it is quite possible that multiple accounts misheard or misunderstood exactly what words were used in the speech, and what their meaning really was.

And, of course, there is one more test for valid revelation: 

Quote

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

What other apostles then repeated Young's doctrine in their own words and by the Spirit of Revelation?  You said many of his contemporaries repeated his words.  I'm aware of people quoting him, but not adding their witness of the Spirit to Young's words.  Show the links.

Edited April 23 by Carborendum

[Maverick]

On 4/23/2024 at 5:21 AM, Carborendum said:

You still haven't provided any links to specific examples.  You made the claim.  You need to back it up.

On 4/23/2024 at 5:21 AM, Carborendum said:

it is quite possible that multiple accounts misheard or misunderstood exactly what words were used in the speech, and what their meaning really was.

On 4/23/2024 at 5:21 AM, Carborendum said:

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

I provided several statements by men in attendance when Brigham Young gave the speech recorded in JD 1:50-51, who confirm that the speech was recorded accurately. And no, it isn’t possible that all these men “misheard” what Brigham said on that occasion. 

As for additional Adam-God statements by Brigham Young and his contemporaries over the next 25+ years, many of these are easy to find online. Here are two links that document many of Brigham Young’s Adam-God statements:

https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Brigham_Young_Adam.pdf

https://www.adamgod.com/

On 4/23/2024 at 5:21 AM, Carborendum said:

You said many of his contemporaries repeated his words.

Yes, quite a few of his contemporaries repeated what Brigham Young taught regarding Adam-God. Some were apostles, others leading church authorities, and others lay members. 

On 4/23/2024 at 5:21 AM, Carborendum said:

What other apostles then repeated Young's doctrine in their own words and by the Spirit of Revelation? 

There were several apostles who taught Adam-God in their own words or testified that the spirit had confirmed to them that it was true. Others accepted it as true because they sustained Brigham Young as the prophet of the church and believed that what he taught was the word of the Lord. 

See for example:

Franklin D. Richards 12/10/1853
Millennial Star 15:803-04
Hear what the Prophet Daniel says upon this subject - [quotes Daniel 7:9, 10, 13, 14.] Again, the word of the Lord through the Prophet Joseph, gives additional importance, if possible, to the part which Adam acts relating to his children, which reads as follows - [quotes D& C 29:26.]
From the foregoing we are enabled to draw important conclusions, that before the coming of the Lord Jesus in the clouds of heaven, to take the reins of government upon the earth, Adam comes and gathers around him all that have ever held keys of power under him upon the earth, in any of the dispensations thereof to man; he calls forth the dead from their graves, at the sound of his trump; he brings them to judgment, and they render unto him an account of their several stewardships; the books are opened that a righteous judgment may be rendered by him who now sits upon his throne, not only as the Father, but the Judge, of men; and in that capacity thousands minister unto him. An august assemblage are now gathered in one grand council around the great Patriarch of all Patriarchs, consisting of his sons, who have been faithful in that which was committed to them; and all this preparatory to that great event, when the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven should be given to the Saints of the Most High. Daniel saw that the Saints possessed the kingdom, by virtue of which Adam was once more in possession of the dominion given unto him before the fall, which was over every living thing that moved upon the earth, which rendered him the universal Sovereign and Lord of all.
At this important period, when Adam is reinstated with full power upon the earth, seated upon his throne, as Daniel saw him - a glorious and an immortal God, one like the Son of Man comes in the clouds of heaven (as oftimes represented by the Apostles), to the Ancient of days, and receives from him dominion, glory, and a kingdom; or in other words, Michael, having accomplished the work committed to him, pertaining to this world, delivers up an account of his stewardship over the same, to that character represented as Yahovah in the creation of the world, who reigns in unison with those upon the earth, until his work is fully accomplished - till the last great contest with the enemy, who has been released for a little season, is won; then he in turn delivers up the kingdom to the great Eloheim, that in the language of the Apostle, `God may be all in all.'
This final surrender, we are to bear in mind, does not detract from the God-like power and dominion of our first Parent, nor of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the Patriarchal order of government, each and every ruler is independent in his sphere, his rule extending to those below, and not to those above him, in the same order. ... [W]e find that ... Michael has power to deliver men from the power of the Devil, which is death; that by the sound of his own trump - the trump of the archangel, the nations of the dead shall awake and come forth to judgment, and there render an account to the Ancient of Days seated upon his burning throne. Then shall the nations know that he is their Judge, their Lawgiver, and their God, and upon his decree hangs the destiny of the assembled dead. Yes, our Judge will be a kind and compassionate Father, by whom none can pass, but through whom all glory, dominion, and power, will be ascribed to the great ETERNAL.

Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball 10/6/1854
Journal of Joseph L. Robinson, 102-03
President Brigham Young said thus, that Adam and Eve were the names of the first man and woman of every earth that was ever organized and that Adam and Eve were the natural father and mother of every spirit that comes to this planet, or that receives tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brother and sisters, and that Adam was God, our Eternal Father. This as Brother Heber remarked, was letting the cat out of the bag,

Heber C. Kimball 6/29/1856
JD 4:1
I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth - the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world, to redeem his brethren; his life was taken, his blood shed, that our sins might be remitted.

Heber C. Kimball 3/11/1857
Journal of Heber C. Kimball 20:17
The Lord told me that Jesus Christ was the son of Adam.

Heber C. Kimball 4/30/1862
Heber C. Kimball, Memorandum
The Lord told me that Adam was my father and that He was the God and father of all the inhabitants of this earth.

George Q. Cannon 10/15/1870
Meeting of the School of the Prophets
[George Q. Cannon] fully endorsed the doctrine that father Adam was our God and Father - or as He in many places is called, Michael the great prince - the Arch Angel, Ancient of Days, & c. It was not only wisdom, but perfectly consistent, that Adam & Eve should partake of the forbidden fruit and start the work of increase of their species. The above doctrine had been revealed to him, so that he knew it was true.

Orson Hyde 1/25/1871
Jans Christian Anderson Weibye Daybooks, Daybook 1st, p. 131
I attended meeting, Orson Hyde preached to us, and he told us that what we heard before that Adam is our God, we had a splendid good meeting. At Manti, Jan 25th Orson Hyde preached to us here in Manti, that, Adam is our God for this planet (Earth).

George Q. Cannon 6/23/1889
Journal of Abraham H. Cannon
He (George Q.) believes that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and that Adam is His Father and our God: that under certain unknown conditions the benefits of the Savior's atonement extend to our entire solar system. ... He asked me what I understood concerning Mary conceiving the Savior; and as I found no answer, he asked what was to prevent Father Adam from visiting and overshadowing the mother of Jesus. Then said I: "he must have been a resurrected Being." "Yes," said he, "and though Christ is said to have been the first fruits of them that slept, yet the Savior said he did nothing but what He had seen His Father do, for He had power to lay down His life and take it up again. Adam, though made of dust, was made, as President Young said, of the dust of another planet than this." I was very much instructed by the conversation and this days services.

Lorenzo Snow and Franklin D. Richards 10/12/1897
Brigham Young Jr. diary
At meeting of all the apostles except Grant and Merill, Pres. [Lorenzo] Snow led out on Adam being our father and God. How beautiful the thought - it brot [sic] God nearer to us. Bro Franklin [D. Richards] said it made him thrill through his whole body - it was new & it was inspiring. 

Wilford Woodruff 12/16/1897
Brigham Young, Jr. Journal
Adam is our father and God and no use to discuss it with Josephites or any one else.

 

Edited Sunday at 07:15 AM by Maverick
I added more quotes from apostles and bolded text

[JohnsonJones]

On 4/7/2024 at 9:18 PM, Maverick said:

One of the boldest claims the church makes is that the church is led by continuing revelation from God to the President of the church, who along with his counselors and the Quorum of the 12 apostles, we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. 

While I don’t doubt that our leaders have often received inspiration and guidance in their callings, my question is why there hasn’t been a single revelation where the direct words of the Lord have been quoted added to our scriptural canon since the revelation Brigham Young received in 1847 in Winter Quarters (D&C 136)? This is literally the last “thus saith the Lord” type revelation quoting the words of the Lord directly added to our scriptures. This was 177 years ago. 

Why hasn’t there been any more revelations like this since? 

I understand that revelation doesn’t always have to come this way and that making prophecies of the future and declaring “thus saith the Lord” first person revelations isn’t all true prophets, seers, and revelators should be expected to do. But why hasn’t there been any of this in such a long time?

This is not a criticism of the brethern. It’s an honest question that has puzzled me for some time now. Any thoughts?

I've only read the first page thus far, but the last revelation that is in our canonized scriptures is actually from only 45 years ago (almost 46 years).  It came prior to the date listed, but the text gives the date of September 30, 1978.  The revelation itself was received in June of that year, presumably. 

It is found in your Doctrine and Covenants at the end of it. 

We have not had a Revelation put into our scriptures since that time, but that does not mean there has not been revelation.

We have not had Revelation that has been canonized and approved by the Church membership since that time that I know of, but that does not preclude that there has been revelation, only that it has not been presented before the body of the church as such for approval. 

[JohnsonJones]

On 4/16/2024 at 10:35 PM, Maverick said:

Journal of Discourse 1:50-51 is hardly the only recorded instance of Brigham Young having taught that Adam is God the Father and the Father of Jesus Christ. There are many recorded statements by Brigham Young teaching Adam-God. Other general authorities at the time taught it, too. From this it as actually very clear what was taught.

The problem is not in understanding what Brigham Young was talking about. The problem is that what he taught contradicts our traditional understanding of Adam. Many people really struggled with this. And as a result Brigham Young generally began teaching it less publicly and forcefully. But he still taught it repeatedly right up to the year of his death. In 1877, he included a thorough summary of the Adam-God doctrine in the lecture at the veil in the temple, which at the time was part of the endowment. 

My understanding is it actually does not contradict what we teach at all, but understanding what Brigham Young stated is hard to understand without the Spirit.

From what has been stated by others, inclusive of Joseph F. and his son Joseph Fielding as well as others who are more studied than I in the matter, Brigham is VERY specific in his wording.

A KEY to understanding it then is to understand that what Adam means is basically Man, and that When using the term Adam, it is saying the term man as well. 

In addition, there are Two Adams that Brigham Young refers to, Father Adam, and Adam.  One is the Father of the other.

This wording is also utilized by Brigham Young in reference to the Prophets Joseph Smith (the Father and Joseph).  Both were prophets, though as one was the Prophet of the Restoration, the other was the Patriarch of it. 

The reason we no longer teach it is because without enlightenment it is VERY easy to misunderstand.  There are MANY misunderstanding surrounding it that led to some pretty drastic disruptions in regards to the doctrine. 

Thus, it is easier to drop it as well as the misunderstandings of what it actually said or says, and instead teach a much simpler and straightforward version of it, which is what we have today (IMO).

[JohnsonJones]

On 4/12/2024 at 6:37 AM, Maverick said:

My question is actually not about the specific phrase "thus saith the Lord." It's about revelations that quote the words of God directly, in his own voice in the first person. The New Testament is full of God's words being quoted in the first person, so is the Pearl of Great Price. So we actually have a pattern of prophets quoting God's words like this all throughout scripture, and yet in the modern church this has essentially completely stopped.

This is NOT fact in what I am about to give a thought about, it is merely a though regarding WHY the wordings differ from when Joseph gave them and what occurs NOW.

This is not even opinion, it is less than that, so hopefully no one jumps down my throat for my thoughts (even if I haven't a penny for them).

First, it is a stylistic CHOICE of how to put the revelations down.  That is a very simple reason.

A DEEPER reason could deal with HOW those revelations are approved.  The Twelve apostles collectively had the same authority and power as the Prophet Joseph Smith.  This means, what he could do singularly needed to be collectively approved by them.

This is why, when Brigham Young wanted to declare some things as doctrine, but someone like Orson Hyde disagreed...it was therefore unable to be declared as doctrine.  To be declared as doctrine, as Joseph would have, it instead needs to the collective approval of the twelve because only together do they hold the collective authority that the Singular Prophet did.

In that same light, should Twelve ever be completely eliminated, the 70 in theory have the collective authority that the Twelve do, and thus could reconstitute the twelve apostles and also institute a prophet.  Any revelation though would need to be collectively approved by ALL of them rather than just the twelve at that point to be authoritative.

IN that same light, should the 70s all be destroyed, the authority to restore the seventy, the twelve, and the prophet lies within the Elders of the Church, but then, as before, a new revelation to be authoritative would need to be collectively approved. 

[Maverick]

15 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

the last revelation that is in our canonized scriptures is actually from only 45 years ago (almost 46 years).  It came prior to the date listed, but the text gives the date of September 30, 1978.  The revelation itself was received in June of that year, presumably. 

It is found in your Doctrine and Covenants at the end of it. 

You’re referring to Official Declaration 2. This is actually not a revelation in the sense I am referring to. There was no vision and there were no direct words of God quoted.

There were rumors floating around at the time that a vision had happened or that there was a “thus saith” the Lord type revelation received, but the brethren who were present in the temple were all very clear that neither of these things happened. What happened was that the brethren had decided to give blacks the priesthood after a great deal of deliberation, then they prayed for confirmation, and received a strong feeling of confirmation that the time was right to end the priesthood ban. 

It really has been over 100 years since there’s been canonized revelation of the literal word of the Lord or a vision. 

15 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Brigham is VERY specific in his wording.

A KEY to understanding it then is to understand that what Adam means is basically Man, and that When using the term Adam, it is saying the term man as well. 

In addition, there are Two Adams that Brigham Young refers to, Father Adam, and Adam.  One is the Father of the other.

The two Adam’s theory was suggested by Eldon Watson, but it’s not accurate.

Brigham only ever referred to Adam or Father Adam as a single individual. He also clearly and repeatedly taught that this singular Adam, the first man upon this earth who was placed in the garden of Eden, is God the Father and the literal father of Jesus Christ in the flesh. 

15 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The reason we no longer teach it is because without enlightenment it is VERY easy to misunderstand. 

I think it is actually very easy to understand. The problem is that it’s very hard to accept because it goes against the traditional understanding of who God is and who Adam is. 

Edited Wednesday at 03:25 AM by Maverick

[Maverick]

15 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

First, it is a stylistic CHOICE of how to put the revelations down.  That is a very simple reason.

If true, why the style change? 

Under the current “style” how are we to know when something our leaders say has truly been given to them directly from God via revelation or when it is just their well reasoned opinion?

16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

A DEEPER reason could deal with HOW those revelations are approved.  The Twelve apostles collectively had the same authority and power as the Prophet Joseph Smith.  This means, what he could do singularly needed to be collectively approved by them.

Why would this prohibit the sharing of visions and revelations quoting the words of God directly?

In the days of Joseph Smith, revelations were presented to the church and published as scripture without having the unanimous approval of the quorum of the 12 apostles. The quorum of the 12 didn’t even exist yet when most of the revelations in the D&C were published and accepted as scripture. 

[JohnsonJones]

9 hours ago, Maverick said:

Brigham only ever referred to Adam or Father Adam as a single individual. He also clearly and repeatedly taught that this singular Adam, the first man upon this earth who was placed in the garden of Eden, is God the Father and the literal father of Jesus Christ in the flesh. 

 

But if you accept it the way you explain, it makes zero sense.  The reasons is that in the case you mention, then Adam would be in three places at the same time, meaning he is exhibiting three different exhibitions at the same time at the same place.  We don't believe that and neither did Joseph or any others.  In fact, the final version that he has of the First Vision directly contradicts this.

However, THIS IS the confusion that people had regarding Brigham's statements and the exact thing that the Church disavowed.  Later doctrinal clarifications explicitly confirm that Brigham Young was referring to multiple people including a Father and a Son with the wording of Adam.  In fact, the reason is that the word Adam is referring to MAN itself.  Thus, by simply saying Adam, one could be referring not only to the Adam in the garden, but to the race of man, or to a specific man...including you or I even.

This is something that SHOULD become apparent by the spirit, and has been something that has more information which we really cannot talk about in the open, but is revealed to those with the spirit in the Temple itself.  It is pertinent to the symbolism and teachings of the various ordinances we partake of in the Temple.

This is something that various prophets have TRIED to clarify over the years, until finally, they just gave up and disavowed the Adam/God teaching (not what was actually taught, but the misunderstandings that many people have had regarding it).

However, to understand the relationship between the various Adams, it helps to understand the statements of Brigham.

I don't know what Elder Watson said, he is not who I was referring to in regards to the people who had clarifications on the statement.  We are talking more about Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, and the most forward of them, Joseph Fielding Smith.  This is also included in more modern Apostles such as Bruce R. Mckonkie and of course Talmadge also indicates heavily in regards to our modern theology on this rather than the misunderstanding that many others had. 

That said, there is nothing in your statement (that I quoted) above that is wrong or contradicts our theology if one gets into the higher tier of theology, but it does touch on what confuses people.  It similar to how people are confused how our Lord and Savior could also be the Father and creator of the Earth and is also referred to as the Father (and so aptly explained by Abinidi in the Book of Mormon I beleive on how that is possible). 

People get confused when you refer to multiple individuals as a Father of types and so, simplification is needed at times, which is what the Church did with the teachings of Brigham Young on this matter.

However, Brigham Young was ALWAYS aware that Adam was NOT his own father, and that there is a Father above both Adam as well as our Lord and Savior, of whom we refer to more sacredly. 

In this, it is better to talk about such things in the simpler manner that we teach today rather than go into detail as it tends to be a thing that can cause confusion and concern.  It is something I feel is more in line with personal revelation and belief on the matter that is to be kept to private conversation or temple query rather than something on the forum for exactly the same reason it is no longer something really prevalent in the teachings of the Church. 

If you want to continue this in a more private conversation I'd be happy to do so, but I don't feel it is proper to really discuss this in public currently.

[JohnsonJones]

8 hours ago, Maverick said:

If true, why the style change? 

Under the current “style” how are we to know when something our leaders say has truly been given to them directly from God via revelation or when it is just their well reasoned opinion?

Why would this prohibit the sharing of visions and revelations quoting the words of God directly?

In the days of Joseph Smith, revelations were presented to the church and published as scripture without having the unanimous approval of the quorum of the 12 apostles. The quorum of the 12 didn’t even exist yet when most of the revelations in the D&C were published and accepted as scripture. 

Because Joseph Smith had the complete authority to do so.

The authority that Joseph had was given collectively to the Twelve, not singularly to one individual.  This is why, today, or at least in the past, confirmation of revelation by a unanimous vote of the 12 was needed.  There were some things which prophets have stated were revelation in the past, but as it was not unanimously supported by the 12, was never considered canonized.

However, in the case of Declaration 2, we do have revelation on ALL of the twelve and it was supported by all of them unanimously. 

We have some wording of the Twelve (particularly of Bruce R. McConkie) regarding what you are saying when the rest of the Twelve got confirmation to confirm the revelation.

HOW President Spencer W. Kimball actually received the revelation initially is unknown (or, as far as I know, has never been revealed to the rest of us) so we don't know whether he saw an angel, it was told to him, or it was a feeling.

I have gotten personal revelation in all three manners though.  I have seen the Lord personally, I have had his voice talk to me in an audible manner, but most often, it comes via a feeling.  It is a feeling I cannot really explain, but it is a feeling that is just as true and strong as any of the others. 

It is this same feeling that changed one of the most ardently opposed to this change of church policy (Bruce R. McConkie) to a supporter of it.

This feeling of the spirit is far stronger than a mere feeling, it is like being talked to but on a deeper and more emotional level.  It is just as much a type of revelation as any other.  This is the most common type of revelation I have had for my personal revelations, and I suspect it is the most prevalent that is found in the church. 

It is generally this type of revelation which one is to try to receive for confirmation of the Book of Mormon and is the strongest type of revelation for conversion to the Church itself (In my opinion).

I know the Book of Mormon teaches the gospel and that the Church is the one established by the Lord through the Holy Ghost revealing it to me in that fashion (not a voice or physical appearance, but that feeling which talks directly to your soul).  I know that the Prophet is our leader of the Church through this same revelation.  It is no less revelation than any of the other forms of revelation.

[Maverick]

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

But if you accept it the way you explain, it makes zero sense.

This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Many people found it very confusing and difficult to accept from day one. 

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The reasons is that in the case you mention, then Adam would be in three places at the same time, meaning he is exhibiting three different exhibitions at the same time at the same place.

I don’t think he would have to be in three places at the same time. Instead what we would see is a hierarchy of God’s who fulfill various different roles with different titles at different times. 

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

  We don't believe that and neither did Joseph or any others.  In fact, the final version that he has of the First Vision directly contradicts this.

If Adam-God is true, then the person standing next to Jesus in the air during the first vision would have been Father Adam. 

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

the word Adam is referring to MAN

Yes, it is true that the Adam and man are the same word in Hebrew in many instances. Hence Christ referring to himself as the Son of Man, which in Hebrew is Ben Adam, or son of Adam. 

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Thus, by simply saying Adam, one could be referring not only to the Adam in the garden, but to the race of man, or to a specific man...including you or I even.

Brigham Young was very clear that he was referring specifically to the singular individual known as Adam in the garden of Eden. He did also teach that there’s an Adam on each planet and that exalted men and women will become the Adam and Eve on their own planets. 

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

We are talking more about Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, and the most forward of them, Joseph Fielding Smith.  This is also included in more modern Apostles such as Bruce R. Mckonkie and of course Talmadge also indicates heavily in regards to our modern theology on this rather than the misunderstanding that many others had. 

I would be interested to see the statements from these men claiming that Brigham was speaking about two Adams. Can you please share these with me. 

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

If you want to continue this in a more private conversation I'd be happy to do so, but I don't feel it is proper to really discuss this in public currently.

You’re welcome to PM me if you’re more comfortable with that.