Adam God by grindael (with new evidence)

[_grindael]

These posts are from a discussion from 2013 (in the Celestial Forum):

If you really want to know about Adam-god, this is the best sermon that Young ever gave on it. I often see a paragraph or two quoted from it, but never the entire part of the sermon, (the 2nd half) that addresses Adam (the first part was on drunkenness). Here it is, the sermon published in the Deseret News June 18, 1873:

I wanted to make a few remarks upon the subject touched upon by my brother, [Joseph] but I shall not have the time. I frequently think, in my meditations, how glad we should be to instruct the world with regard to the things of God, if they would hear, and receive our teachings in good and honest hearts and profit by them. I have been found fault with a great many times for casting reflections upon men of science, and especially upon theologians, because of the little knowledge they possess about man being on the earth, about the earth itself, about our Father in heaven, his Son Jesus Christ, the order of heavenly things, the laws by which angels exist, by which the worlds were created and are held in existence, &c. How pleased we would be to place these things before the people if they would receive them! 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. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith.

Is it a great mystery that the earth exists? Is it a great mystery, that the world can not solve, that man is on the earth? Yes, it is; but to whom? To the ignorant—those who know nothing about it. It is no mystery to those who understand. Is it a mystery to the Christian world that Jesus is the Son of God, and still the son of man? Yes it is, it is hidden from them, and this fulfils the Scripture—“If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost,” who have no faith, and who pay no attention to the Spirit of God. These things are called mysteries by the people because they know nothing about them, just like laying hand on the sick. Is it a mystery that fever should be rebuked and the sick healed by the laying of the hands of a man who is endowed with authority from God and has been ordained to that gift? “Oh yes,” say the ignorant, “we know nothing about it,” That is true, but where is the mystery?

Will the ignorant receive the truth when they hear it? No, they will not, and this is their condemnation, that light has come into the world, and they choose darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. That is the fact in the case. What is the mystery about it? They do not understand invisible things. Ask the wicked, “Do you know anything about the laying on of hands?” “oh yes, such a man”—a man who is wicked in his whole life—“has the art of laying on hands for the curing the tooth—ache, fevers, wounds,” &c.; and now, in fulfillment of the words of the ancient prophet, thousands of people seek unto “wizards who peep and mutter,” &c., but they will not seek unto the living God. I can say to all the inhabitants of the earth that before what is called spiritualism was ever known in America I told the people that if they would not believe the revelations that God had given he would suffer the devil to give revelations that they—priests and people—would follow after. Where did I declare this? In the cities of New York, Albany, Boston, throughout the United States and in England. Have I told the people that as true as God lived, if they would not have the truth they would have error sent unto them, and they would believe it. What is the mystery of it?

The Christian world read of, and think much about, St. Paul, also St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles. These men were faithful to and magnified the priesthood while on the earth. Now, where will be the mystery, after they have passed through all the ordeals, and have been crowned and exalted, and received their inheritances in the eternal worlds of glory, for them to be sent forth, as the Gods have been for ever and ever, with the command–”Make yourselves an earth and people it with your own children?”

Do you think the starry heavens are going to fall? Do the Christian world or the heathen world think that all things are going to be wrapped up, consumed, and annihilated in eternal flames? Oh fools, and slow to heart to believe the great things that God has purposed in his own mind!

My brother said that God is as we are. He did not mean those words to be literally understood. He meant simply, that in our organization we have all the properties in embryo in our bodies that our Father has in his, and that literally, morally, socially, by the spirit and by the flesh we are his children. Do you think that God, who holds the eternities in his hands and can do all things at his pleasure, it not capable of sending forth his own children, and forming this flesh for his own offspring? Where is the mystery in this? 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.” What is the great mystery about it? He came and formed the earth.

Geologists tell us that it was here millions of years ago. How do they know? Adam found it in a state of chaos, unorganized and incomplete. Philosophers, again, in talking of the development of the products of the earth, for instance, in the vegetable kingdom, say the little fibres grew first, then the larger vegetation. When this preparatory stage was completed then came the various orders of the animal creation; and finally man appeared. No matter whether these notions are true or not, they are more or less speculative.

Adam came here and got it up in a shape that would suit him to commence business. Father Adam came here, and then they brought his wife. “Well,” says one, “Why was Adam called Adam?” He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he said, “I WANT MY CHILDREN WHO ARE IN THE SPIRIT WORLD TO COME AND LIVE HERE. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state, I was faithful, I RECEIVED MY CROWN AND EXALTATION. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my children THAT WERE BORN TO ME IN THE SPIRIT WORLD to come here and take tabernacles of flesh, that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or a dwelling place as mine has, and where is the mystery?

Now for mother Eve. The evil principle always has and always will exist. Well, a certain character came along, and said to Mother Eve, “The Lord has told you that you must not do so and so, for if you do you shall surely die. But I tell you that if you do not do this you will never know good from evil, your eyes will never be opened, and you may live on the earth forever and ever, and you will never know what the Gods know.” The devil told the truth, what is the mystery about it? He is doing it today. He is telling one or two truths and mixing them with a thousand errors to get the people to swallow them. I do not blame Mother Eve, I would not have had her miss eating the forbidden fruit for anything in the world. I would not give a groat if I could not understand light from darkness. I can understand the bitter from the sweet, so can you. Here is intelligence, but bind it up and make machines of its possessors, and where is the glory or exaltation? There is none.

They must pass through the same ordeals as the Gods, that they may know good from evil, how to succor the tempted, tried and weak, and how to reach down the hand of mercy to save the falling sinner. The Lord has revealed his gospel and instituted its ordinances that the inhabitants of the earth may be put in possession of eternal life. But few of them, however, will accept it. I have preached it to many thousands of them who are naturally just as honest as I am, but through tradition there is an overwhelming prejudice in their minds which debars them of that liberty I have in my heart. They would be glad to know the ways of God, and to know how Jesus is, and to reap the reward of the faithful, if they had the stamina, I will call it, the independence of mind necessary to embrace the truth, to say, “I know this is true, and if there is no other person on the face of this earth who will defend it, I will to the last.” But this is not in their hearts, it is not in their organization, consequently they do not manifest it. What mystery is there about it?

None whatever. What is the mystery in Jesus being the Son of God and at the same time the son of the Virgin Mary? You know what the infidels say about this, but their words are no worse than the practice of many in the Christian world.

I do not want to be found fault with, but if I am it is all the same to me. There is no mystery to me in WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED TO ME, or in what I have learned, whether it has been through Joseph, an angel, the voice of the Spirit, the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of the Lord; no matter how I have learned a thing, if I understand it perfectly it is no mystery to me. It is like making one of these pulpits, or a house like this. This is no mystery to me, I dictated it, and a great many say it is a great piece of architecture to have a single span, so large as this roof and composed of wood that will sustain itself. But it is no mystery to me. I know the strength of the materials and how to place them together. It is no mystery to me to build a temple or a common house. But you take a gentleman or lady who was never beyond the confines of a densely populated city, who never saw wheat grow, and who never saw cattle in the fields, and it is a great mystery to them to see them. Why? Because they never saw such things before, and they know nothing about them; but it is no mystery to those who know all about such things.

Do you think it any mystery to angels to know how the various organizations are brought on earth? Not the least in the world. There is no mystery in all this to the Gods, no mystery in them to the prophets and apostles whom they send, and to whom they reveal them; it is all plain, everyday common sense, just as much so as with anything else in the world—we understand it.

Some may say to me, “Why, Brother Brigham, you seem to know it all.” I say, Oh no, I know but very little, but I have an eternity of knowledge before me, and I never expect to see the time when I shall cease to learn, never, no never, but I expect to keep on learning for ever and ever, going on from exaltation to exaltation, glory to glory, power to power, ever pressing forward to greater and higher attainments, as the Gods do. This is an idea that drowns the whole Christian world in a moment. Let them try to entertain it and they are out of sight of land without a ship, and if they had a ship it would have neither sail, rudder nor compass.

“What,” say they, “God progress?” Now, do not lariat the God that I serve and say that he can not learn any more; I do not believe in such a character. “Why,” say they, “does not the Lord know it all?” Well if he does, he must know an immense amount. No matter about that, the mind of man does not reach that any more than it comprehends the heaven beyond the bounds of time and space in which the Christians expect to sit and sing themselves away to everlasting bliss, and where they say they shall live for ever and for ever.

If we look forward we can actually comprehend a little of the idea that we shall live for ever and for ever; but you take a rear-sight, and try and contemplate and mediate upon the fact that there never was a beginning and you are lost at once. The present and the future we can comprehend some little about, but the past is all a blank, and it is right and reasonable that it should be so. But if we are faithful in the things of God whey will open up, open up, open up, our minds will expand, reach forth and receive more and more, and by and by we can begin to see that the Gods have been for ever and for ever.

Some philosophers have tried to reveal the first cause. I would change the position of the whole affair. I would plant my position in the ignorance of man that undertakes to prove or show the existence of a first cause. He had better go to work and prove himself a fool to begin with and then stop, for all his reasonings, arguments and researches with regard to the first cause only prove that he is a fool. Excuse me for this rough expression, perhaps it would be better to say that he comes far short of knowing or understanding himself in the least degree that he is lost in ignorance of himself. Is this the fact? It is. We can know nothing until we learn it, and when we come to a knowledge of facts they are no mystery to us.

Take one of these native Navajo women down south here into a factory and show her the machinery for weaving blankets, and if she has never seen anything of the kind she would laugh at such nonsense. Says she, “That is not the way to weave blankets, why do you not tie your web up to the limb of a tree, fasten the other end down, and then take a stick and do just so? That will never weave a blanket.” By and by she sees the blanket finished, but it is a mystery to her, and she can not understand anything about it, because she has not learned it. It is so with the whole human family.

You will excuse me for detaining you a little longer than usual. I wanted to ask the brethren and sisters if they did not think my brother, Joseph Young, pretty good. He is nearly seventy-seven years of age and had a severe sickness last winter. Do you not think he is pretty hale, and doing pretty well? I think he is. I like to see him here. I know that he has been trying to tell the people with regard to the things of God for fifty years past. If I were to live and learn as I have for forty years past—since I have been in this church—for a thousand years, I should only have just commenced to learn the great lesson of eternity.

I do hope and pray—and I want you to listen how I shape this prayer, instead of praying to my Father in heaven in the name of Jesus to make you and me faithful—I pray that we Latter-day Saints may be faithful to the covenants we have entered into with our Heavenly Father and with one another, and to live our holy religion., for we do know how. I need not ask the Father to make us faithful any more than I need ask him to come and sow our wheat for us, not a particle, for we know all about it. Be faithful, do right and live so as to be worthy of life everlasting. Amen. (Deseret News, Vol. 22, No. 308, June 18, 1873. Brigham Young; discourse delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday Afternoon, June 8th, 1873. Reported by David W. Evans).

[_grindael]

In some 256 references to Elohim and Jehovah and the God of the Old Testament, in the Journal of Discourses (representing sermons of many of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve), the title Jehovah is only specifically applied to Jesus once. This occurred in 1885, when the new doctrine identifying Jesus as Jehovah was just beginning to be developed.

In August of 1885, Franklin D. Richards made the leap from merely considering Jesus to be Jehovah's representative (and thus worthy of the latter's title) to the position that Jesus' premortal name was Jehovah:

"We learn that our Savior was born of a woman, and He was named Jesus the Christ. His name when He was a spiritual being, during the first half of the existence of the earth, before He was made flesh and blood, was Jehovah... He was the spirit being that directed, governed, and gave the law on Mount Sinai, where Moses was permitted to see Him in part." (Journal of Discourses, 26:300)

That this was a new idea is indicated by the fact that just four months prior to this sermon, this same Apostle spoke of Jehovah as the Father. (Journal of Discourses, 26:132) See "Jehovah as Father" Sunstone, 1984. (Jesus was then named after his grandfather, the father of Adam who Brigham Young called "Yahovah".)

It was after this that Cannon started teaching that Jesus was Jehovah as he did to Abraham:

Abraham H. Cannon Diary Insert: p. 39,(Vol XI) Sun. June 23, 1889--Geo. Q. Cannon is teaching the gospel to A.H. He taught: (1) "That all men, even the sons of perdition, will be resurrected." (2) "That Jesus Christ is Jehovah". (3) "That Adam is His Father and our God". (4) That under certain unknown conditions the benefits of the Savior's atonement extend to our solar system."

And,

March (1888): . . . In the afternoon Apostle F. D. Richards spoke on the duties of the Saints, and I also spoke for about 25 minutes in a confused way. I fear that I counted too much on my own wisdom in arising to speak, and I felt very much chagrined when I resumed my seat. I hope the lesson will not be lost on me. As we drove home Father told me that all his success in life was due to his zeal for the work of God. Men gave him credit for much more ability than he possessed, but whatever talents he did possess he had tried to use to the glory of God. In his speaking he had never desired to be sensational but to be sound in doctrine. 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 Pres. Young said, of the dust of another planet than this." I was very much instructed by the conversation and this day's services.

But... Joseph F. Smith believed in Adam God. His later posturing was to hide it - as "a pearl too precious to be cast before swine". Your argument Ben, is shallow and comes from refusing to believe, or not understanding Brigham Young, or Young's authority, or that he claimed it was a revelation from God to him. The late Matthew Brown, who you gave as a reference, gave a horrible presentation about Adam God. He used ellipses to hide what he did not want people to see, misapplied quotes by Brigham Young, and made wrong assumptions about many things. Anything from FAIR is to be treated with disdain. They can't get anything right. The best article to read is the one by David John Buerger, who never says that Young did not understand what he was teaching. (Only FAIR does that - erroneously), as do you.

[_grindael]

Grindael, I looked up your quote there on the web but I couldn't find a source for it or any more of it. Could you provide more of it and the source. I'm honestly very curious about it.

Why is it erroneous to say that Brigham likely misunderstood or misinterpreted something? Though Brigham did claim revelation on the subject, his ultimate appeal was to Joseph Smith as author of the doctrine. If we don't have any source material on Joseph Smith teachings about Adam-God, whether Brigham clearly understood what was taught is completely up in the air (unless you trust modern apostles and prophets). We have many examples of apostasy in the history of the Bible, and this event seems to be a likely candidate.

I know that Brigham claimed it was a revelation from God, however because he never gives us the revelation itself, we don't know if he felt the Spirit confirming his understanding of Joseph's teachings or if he had a full blown vision detailing Adam-God. Either way, something clearly went wrong. Whether you side with Adam-God doctrine or whether you side with Spencer W. Kimball is a choice based on faith and your relationship with God.

Ben, I don't know which quote you are speaking about. Can you be more specific?

It is erroneous to say that Brigham Young misunderstood or misinterpreted something because he said so, did he not? Or don't you take him at his word? Funny thing, that. Yes ... trusting prophets. Why do you pick and choose? Why do you choose the latter and not the former? Of course, the latter can call the former to be in error, but how can they prove that? Did you have a "revelation" about which "prophet" to believe? If so, was it a "full blown vision"? Did you write it down for all to see and confirm? Where is Kimball's "revelation" that Adam-god is false? He only made a statement too. You see the problem here? In fact, where is Kimball's "revelation" reversing the Priesthood Ban on Blacks? That was just a statement, wasn't it? A press release to be exact. Here it is,

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney
The First Presidency

What is different about what Young published in 1873 and that? Two counselors signing their names? Where is the "revelation" that says that a "revelation" has to have that formula? Please cite the "vision" that confirms that. In fact one of your modern "authorities" has said,

If one wishes to listen to and obey the voice of the Lord, one must find the Lord’s prophet. The Lord Himself has indicated that His voice shall be “by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days” (D&C 1:4). Indeed, “whether by mine own voice, or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38). While this principle applies to any of the Lord’s servants who speak by the power of the Holy Ghost (see D&C 68:1-6), it is clear that the Lord speaks to us most directly and particularly through His prophets.

Prior to the establishment of the Church, the Lord told Joseph Smith: “[T]his generation shall have my word through you” (D&C 5:10). Consistent with that promise, on April 6, 1830, the day the Church was formally established, the Lord told the Church that Joseph Smith should be referred to as a “seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and an elder of the church” (D&C 21:1). The Lord then commanded the Church as follows: “[T]hou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D&C 21:4-5). ELDER JAMES J. HAMULA, Area Presidency Message, 2012, lds.org

What was different about Brigham Young? Nothing that I know of. Do you? Was he to be treated differently than Joseph Smith? If so, where is that "revelation"? Or is the church set up on worldly principles that to the victor goes the right to rewrite history? Rewrite everything? Why was Spencer Kimball right and Young wrong?

Do you believe that Wilford Woodruff "had the spirit"? That he knew what it was? That he knew if Brigham Young had it? How about almost all of the apostles in one room (except one) "and many others" including the Presiding Bishop and the Presidency of the Seventies, confirming that Brigham Young's Adam-god doctrine was the word of the Lord? Well, here it is,

There were Present President Young President Kimball (D H Wells sick) All of the Twelve except A. Lyman & G. A. Smith who was sick. The Presidency of the Seventies Bishop Hunter & many others. A Hymn was sung O Happy Souls who Pray. Prayer By O Hyde.

President Young stated the object of the Meeting was to Convers upon Doctrinal Points to see if we see alike & think alike. I Pray that we may have the spirit of God to rest upon us that our minds may be upon the subject & that we may speak by the Holy spirit.

He then Called upon A Carrington to read a sermon. He read it before the Company a peace prepared for the press written by Orson Pratt upon the Godhead. He Claimed that it was the atributes of God that He worshiped and not the person & that He worshiped those Atributes whether he found them in God, Jesus Christ Adam, Moses, The Apostles Joseph, Brigham or in any body Els. After the document was read President Young then Called upon the Twelve to express their feelings upon the subject. He called upon O Hyde to speak & he called upon J Taylor to speak. He spoke a short time. No one knew at the time (except the President & Carrington) who was the author of the document read.

Brother Taylor said he did not see it in that light. He worshiped a personage and not the Atributes. He thought God was Located and Could not worship the Atributes in any body.

President Young then Called a vote of the assembly and said if you understand this to be a Correct doctrin as here written I wish you [to] manifest it by saying yes. No one spoke.

President Young then said do I worship Atributes or the Dispencer of those atributes? I worship the Dispencer of those atributes and Not the Atributes. [p.421] This is O Pratts Sermon prepared for the Press. I do not want to have it published if it is not right. Brother Orson Worships the Atributes of God but not God. I worship not the Atributes but that God who holds and dispenses. If Eternity was full of atributes and No one to dispens them they would not be worth a feather.

Suppose an Angels comes to us to Night with a message From God and he tels the angels not to make himself known. He Comes to us with a message and gives a New Law and a penalty for not obeying. You may ask who are you? He may not tell you who he is or he may say God sent me. You may Say whare is that God who sent you? I don't know or Care any thing about you or what you say. He might say to you I am a god to you. Moses Said to Israel I am a God to you. Joseph Said to us I am a God to you. This was true and upon the same principles I am a God to this people & so is any man who is appointed to lead Israel or the Kingdom of God. If the people reject him they reject the one who sent him. But we will let that drop, and turn to the other subject.

Now suppose we were all to receive a fullness of the Atributes of God and According to Orson Pratts Theory The Lord had a fulness and He Could not advance but we Could advance till we were Equal to him. Than if we worshiped the Atributes instead of God we would soon worship ourselves as soon as we had a fulness of those atributes. Then you Cannot worship any thing beyound yourself. You would then worship the atributes & not the dispenser of those atributes. "This is fals doctrin."

God did not say worship Moses because he was a God to the people. You may say to your wife or son do so & so. They will say I will not but I will go to a greater man. I will go to Brigham Young. You might say I am your Counciller Dictator or your God. Either would be Correct. And they should obey your Just & righteous Command. Yet they should not worship you for this would be sin.

Orson Pratt has differed from me in many things, [p.422] But this is a great principle & I do not wish to say you shall do so and so. I do not know of a man who has a mathamatical turn of mind but what goes to Far. The trouble between Orson Pratt & me is I do not know Enough & he knows to much. I do not know evry thing. Their is a mystery Concerning the God I worship which mystery will be removed when I Come to a full knowledge of God.

One of the greatest things Joseph Smith ever did was to Familiarize Heaven & Earth and Cause them to shake hand together and become Familiar Together. This was a great principle. It is simple yet true. When I met the God I worship I expect to [meet a] personage with whom I have been acquainted upon the same principle that I would to meet with my Earthly Father after going upon a Journey & returning home.

W. Woodruff spoke & said that it is our privelege so to live as to have the spirit of God to bear record of the Truth of any revelation that Comes from God through the mouth of his Prophet who leads his people and it has ever been a key with me that when The Prophet who leads presents a doctrin or principle or says thus saith the Lord I make it a point to receive it even if it Comes in Contack with my tradition or views being well satisfied that the Lord would reveal the truth unto his Prophet whom he has Called to lead his Church before he would unto me. And the word of the Lord through the prophet is the End of the Law unto me.

O Hyde & Joseph Young both backed me up. Joseph Young said "I do not believe in the doctrin or worshiping the attributes and not the auther. I once loved a woman. She says to me you shall have my respect & kind regards & she told me to go in peace. I told her it was not her good will that I wanted alone. I wanted her. So with my God. If he was to say to me Joseph here take my attributes & go I would say No father it is not your attributes alone that I want but I want you. When I read O Pratts views in the Seer I Could not swallow it. Joseph the Prophet said when you see your Father you will [p.423] see him Just as he was in this life ownly he will be full of Strength Glory Immortality & Eternal life.

President Brigham Young said now here is the Twelve. I wish to extend there Influence as Far as I Can but I Cannot do it while they teach Fals doctrine. One of the Causes of the declaration in England (as I understand the people are Clear down) is what Orson Pratt Preached in the Seer. There is not a man in the Church that can preach better than Orson Pratt upon any subject which he understands. It is music to hear him. But the trouble is he will preach upon things he does not know any thing about and then he will preach fals doctrin & so will Elder Hyde. He preaches upon the resurrection & teaches things which are not true.

I will tell you the God which you and I worship, it is a Being that was on an Earth like this. He has been Cloathed in Mortality the same as we have been and he has had Devils to fight the same as we have had but I do not expect they were the same Devils that we have. That God says I am your God and there is none Els. Let us worship him and none Els. He is the God that we have. No matter what Gods Enoch saw when the heavens were opened unto him if the God he saw had been exalted millions of years before our God was. He also had to occupy an Earth like ourselves and we shall find it out at some period and this is all the mystery there is about it & if we are faithful we in our turn shall be Exalted and become Gods and there will be no mystery about it when we understand it.

O Hyde said I am satisfied that I have used a good deal of Philosiphy which is not true but that is all done away with, and I did not think I should meet with the Prejudices of Potawatamie here to night.

President Young said if you bring Potawatamie with you you [mus?]t expect to meet it. O Hyde said that he did not preach in Grantsville as Brother Joseph Young reported he did. Brother Joseph was not Present and he has been misinformed Concerning it. [p.424] E. T. Benson Explained the way O Hyde did preach. He compaired the resurrection to taking a Journey around the world. We travel all day stop at a station at night lie down and sleep at night arise in the morning & Continue our Journey through another day & so on. So at the End of this life we sleep in the grave till the morning of the resurrection. We then arise and Continue our Journey."

Brother Benson also said I do not preach things which I do not know. I keep in shallow water. I wish to teach the people those things which they Can understand, and those things we Cannot understand I do not trouble myself about. I know it is my duty to sustain the presidet of this Church. If I do not respect the Presidet of this church and believe his word and I set my self up against him I am under Condemnation. I would as lives Cut off my right Hand. If he speaks to us we must believe him and obey him. I mean to do it.

Erastus Snow said President Young has put words in my mouth so that I Can Convey what I want. We are apt to say many things which we do not mean & we injure ourselves. I Cannot see things in the same light that Orson Pratt does but when President Young has taught doctrin it has always tasted good to me. I do not wish to know any more than God wishes me to.

Orson Pratt said I will speak upon this subject. I have not spoaken but once in the Tabernacle since Conference. I then spoke upon the revelations in the Doctrins & Covenants Concerning the Father & son & their atributes. I spoke upon those attributes of the Father & son. I spoke of the Attributes of the Saints. I gave my views upon the attributes of God. I sincerly believed what I preached. How long I have believed this doctrin I do not know but it has been for years. I have published it in the seer. I spoke of a plurality of Gods. In order to worship this God I said that I adored the atributes wharever I found them. I was honest in this matter. * [The asterisk is Woodruff's.] I would not worship a god or Tabernacle that did not possess Attributes. If [p.425] I did I should worship Idols. I have taught this doctrin.

Now the reson I worship the Father is because in him is Combined the attributes. If he had not those attributes I would not worship him any more than I would this Chair. I Cannot see any difference between myself and President Young. If you had told me what you worshiped him for you would have told me sumthing but now I Can see no difference between us. I wish to Explain Now Jesus Said I am in the Father & the Father in me. Now I do not suppose that the Father is in the Son & the Son in the Father in the Tabernacle, but in the spirit and Attributes, truth light power &c. We are told that the son represents the Father in Attributes &c.

I Called upon the Brethren to Come to this meeting to settel this But I must have sumthing more than a declaration of President Young to Convince me. I must have Evidence. I am willing to take President Young as a guide in most things but not in all. President Young does not profess to have revelations in all things. I am not to loose my agency. I have said many things which President Young says is Fals. I do not know how it is. I Count President Young Equal to Joseph And Joseph Equal to President Young. I find things in Josephs Revelations that govern me. I would as lief believe Joseph as Brigham. When Joseph teaches one thing & Brigham seems to teach another Contrary to Joseph (I say seems to) I believe them as Joseph has spoken them and as the Apostle speaks of them.

I do not know God ownly by his Atributes and that God who has the most Atributes I worship. I worship but one God, and God does not dwell in me ownly by his Atributes. I have spoken plainly. I would rather not have spoken so plainly but I have No excuses to make. President Young said I ought to make a Confession But Orson Pratt is not a man to make a Confession of that I do not Believe. I am not going to Crawl to Brigham Young and act the Hypocrite and Confess what I do not Believe. I will be a free man. President Young Condemns my doctrin [p.426] to be fals. I do not believe them to be fals. I believe President Young to be sincere in sayin that my doctrin is fals.

I did not Believe the doctrin fals which I published in the Seer in England. It has been said we should let those things sleep. But you do not let them sleep. If I had thought while in England that President Young worshiped a God without attributes I would not have written what I did. (The above remark was an unkind Cut in Orson Pratt he should not have said.") But I do not believe it yet I will not act the Hypocrite. It may Cost me my fellowship But I will stick to it if I die tonight I would say O Lord God Almighty I believe what I say.

Elder John Taylor spoke at some length and tried to Convince Orson Pratt of his Error.

President Young said Orson Pratt has started out upon false premises to argue upon. His foundation has been a fals one all the time and I will prove it false. You have been like a mad stoubern Mule, and have taken a fals position in order to accuse me. You have accused me of worshiping a stalk or Stone or a dead Body without life or attributes. You never herd such a doctrin taught by me or any leader of the Church. It is as false as Hell and you will not hear the last of it soon. You know it is false. Do we worship those attributes? No we worship God because he has all those Attributes and is the dispenser of them and because he is our Father & our God. Orson Pratt puts down a lie to argue upon. He has had fals ground all the time to night. There never was a time or Eternity but what a God did exist, and a God that had Children upon the same principle that Children are now begotton. And I was begotton by the God I worship who reigns in the heavens and I shall also in my turn reign as a God & so will you.

O. Hyde said to O Pratt, My opinion is not worth as much to me as my fellowship in this Church.

President Young said Michael was a resurrected Being and he left Eloheem and Came to this Earth & with an im[mor]tal Body & continued so till he partook [p.427] of Earthly food and begat Children who were mortal. (Keep this to yourselves). Then they died. [This is Adam-God]

A Carrington spoke upon the subject a short time & made some useful remarks.

President Young spoke upon the subject of O Pratt laying down fals principle to work upon. That principle if Carried out would place us in a position that when a man got a fulness of the Attributes of God they would have to worship themselves. But if we worship God we worship him because he possesses all the Attributes and dispenses them to the Children of men. All these Attributes are the servants of God. They serve his purposes and are at his Command.

President H C Kimball Followed President Young and said Brother Orson Pratt has withstood Joseph and he has withstood Brother Brigham many times and he has done it to night and it made my Blood Chill. It is not for you to lead but to be led by him. You have not the power to dictate but to be dictated.

W. Woodruff arose and said Brother Orson Pratt I wish to ask you one or two questions. You see that the spirit and doctrin which you possess is entirely in a oposition to the First Presidency The Quorum of the Twelve, and all who are present this evening and it Chills the Blood in our veins to hear your words & feel your spirit. Should not this be an Evidence to you that you are wrong? What would become of the Quorum of the Twelve if we all felt as you do? We should all go to Hell in a pile to gether.

You say you are honest in the Course you are pursueing. I wish to ask you if you was honest when you said that if you had known that President Young worshiped a God without life or Attributes that you would not have written what you did. (O Pratt said I will recall that.) It was an insult to President Young and the Holy Priesthood which he holds. Evry man in this room who has a particle of the spirit of God knows that President Young is a Prophet of God and that God sustains him and He has the Holy Spirit and his doctrins are true. and that he is qualifyed to lead the people and he has explained evry thing so plain this evening that a Child Can understand [p.428] it and yet it is no evidence to you. Nothing Can make an impression upon you. No argument can reach your understanding. [Did EVEN ONE PERSON deny this?]

But Brother Orson I have seen the day when you was in sorrow. It was when you was Cast out of your Quorum and out of the Church and that to in Consequence of pursueing the Same Course you are this evening. Then you Could both see feel & understand. Then argument Could reach you when you saw your glory and Crown departing from you. I beg of you to reflect and not let your will Carry you to Far in these things.

It would be better for us not to be able to Cast up a single sum in adition and be humble before the Lord than to have ever so much knowledge & permit that knowledge to lead us to destruction. There are but few men upon Earth upon whom God has bestowed such gifts, qualifications and reasoning powers as he has upon you, and he will hold you responsible for the use you make of them, and you should not make a wreck of your salvation for Contending for things which you do not understand. And I do feel at this advanced state of the Church and late day and with the information which you possess that neither you nor your Brethren ought to be troubled with Fals doctrin. Neither should you Cause your Brethren to listen to such a scene of things as we have herd to night or to insult the presidet of this church as you have done. Although you are unbending in your will to night the day is not far distant when you will be glad to bend to the presidet of this Church and make reconciliation.

Erastus Snow Followed and backed up the Testimony of those who have spoaken. Orson Hyde Spoke upon the subject and said Brother Pratt had not got the spirit of God.

He was followed By C. C. Rich who backed up the Testimony of the Twelve in saying that Orson Pratt was wrong. E. T. Benson spoke upon the same subject and said if Brother Pratt had the Confidence in Presidet Young which he ought to have he would Feel diferent. If he had the Confidence in his Brethren which he should have I know He would feel different.

[p.429] President Young said I will tell you how I got along with Joseph. I found out that God Called Joseph to be a Prophet. I did not do it. I then said I will leave the Prophet in the hands of that God who called and ordained him to be a Prophet. He is not responsible to me and it is none of my business what He does. It is for me to follow & obey him.

I once was ashamed of one thing which I did while in Missouri in Zions Camp. I got a revelation that God excepted our offering. I had the same thing revealed to me twice & that we should not go into Jackson Co. I named this to some of the Brethren a day or two before Joseph got a Revelation upon the same subject. I felt ashamed that I named it first. I knew whare we were going and I now know that when we go to Jackson County we shall go from the west. And I will now tell you all and you may right it down that all my preaching by the Holy Ghost is revelation.

I told Brother Joseph that he had given us revelation enough to last us 20 years. When that time is out I can give as good revelation as their is in the Doctrins & Covenants.

"Elder Taylor said in one of his sermons that if we walk in the light of the Lord we should have revelations all the time." It is the light that is within you. No man Can live his religion without living in Revelation but I would never tell a revelation to the Church untill Joseph told it first.

Joseph Once told me to go to his own house to attend a meeting with him. He said that He would not go without me. I went and Hiram Preached upon the Bible Book of Mormon & Covenants and said we must take them as our guide alone. He preached vary lengthy untill he nearly wearied the people out. When he Closed Joseph told me to get up. I did so. I took the Books and piled them all up on top of Each other. I then said that I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for all those books for my salvation without the living oracles. I should follow and obey the living oracles for my salvation instead of any thing Els. When I got through Hyrum got up and made a Confession for not including the living Oracles.

[p.430] It may be thought strange by the Brethren that I will still fellowship Elder Pratt after what He has said but I shall do it. I am determined to whip Brother Pratt into it and make him work in the harvest.

Orson Pratt said if I gratifyed my feelings I had rather go into the Canyon than to Preach. I have got to go to Tooele to get wood for my family.

Presidet Young said I will give you a mission in Tooele to preach & send word to the Bishop to get some man & draw up his wood. Brother Pratt has no business in the Canyon. The Lord does not want him there. F D Richard Dismissed the meeting.

28th I spent the day in the office. I met with the Twelve in the prayer Circle. Orson Pratt met with us. He did not dress but said he wanted to be in the Society of the Twelve. He seemed much more soft in his spirit than he had been.

29th Sunday I met at the Tabernacle. Orson Pratt was in the stand and Quite unexpected to his Brethren he arose before his Brethren and made a vary humble full Confession Before the whole assembly for his oposition to President Young and his Brethren and He said he wished all the Church was present to hear it. He quoted Joseph Smiths revelation to prove that President Brigham Young was right and that all was under obligation to follow the Leader of the Church. I never herd Orson Pratt speak better or more to the satisfaction of the People than on this occasion. He would not partake of the sacrament untill he had made a Confession. Then he partook of it. (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 427-430, January 27-28, 1860).

Please tell me how all of those men could be so wrong and not know that Brigham Young didn't have the Spirit when he taught Adam-god. They all affirmed right there that ALL OF HIS DOCTRINES were TRUE and he had the Spirit about him when he taught. Ah, but you say... Spencer Kimball can trump that because he was a "living oracle". Correct. But then you have the problem of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, don't you?

The whole system is flawed then right? This means that every single man in that room believed false doctrine because a later "prophet" said so. So was John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, etc. etc. true "prophets" if they could be deceived so easily? Or is is as Tobin says, that "opinion" rules the church? This is typical of those who live in the bubble of denial.

[_grindael]

So Ben,

Let me get this straight. You think that Brigham Young "apostatized"? If so, then why did God allow him to continue as leader of the church for 25 more years, and, are all Mormon "authorities" who say that a "prophet" can't lead the church astray also in apostasy? Remember, it was Young who gave you the Ban on Blacks holding the Priesthood which the Church took as a "revelation" (without any documentation) for over 130 years. Or are Mormon "prophets" allowed to "lead the church astray" for centuries and then later "prophets" affirm them as "great prophets" while on the side calling them teachers of false doctrine and calling "folklore" a "revelation"?

What a strange thing Mormonism is, and this is exactly why I left. (And it was over Adam-god, and the related issues that spring from it (documented above) which I'm pretty much an expert on).

[_grindael]

Ben,

It occurred to me that you might be speaking of the Joseph F. Smith quote. If so, I thought you had read David John Buerger's essay "The Adam God Doctrine". It's in there. Here is what it says,

Private endorsement of Young's teachings was even more emphatic in other meetings of the School of the Prophets. In an 1870 meeting, "Elder Geo[rge] Q. Cannon fully endorsed the doctrine that Father Adam was our God and Father...." Indeed, "the above doctrine had been revealed to him, so that he knew it was true."62 In another meeting of the School three years later, Daniel Wells of the First Presidency asked his colleagues whether they endorsed the "doctrine pertaining to Adam being our Father & our God." He personally "bore a powerful testimony to the truth of the doctrine, remarking that if ever he had received a testimony of any doctrine in this church he had of the truth of this. The Endowments plainly teach it and the Bible & other revelations are full of it." Others who "approved or endorsed" the doctrine at the meeting were Henry Grow, D. B. Huntington, John Lyon, George B. Wallace, and Joseph F. Smith, the latter stating that "the enunciation of that doctrine gave him great joy."63 ~Dialogue, Vol.15, No.1, p.31

63 Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minute Book, entry for June 9, 1873, LDS Archives. Most of these men were prominent members of the church; Wallace became president of the Salt Lake Stake in 1874 (through 1876), and Joseph F. Smith became president of the church in 1901.

As early as 1860 critics of the Mormons, notably the newly Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, had used Brigham's Adam-God doctrine as a focal point for attack. In the years following Young's death, polygamy was the principal cause celebre, but with the Manifesto of 1890 "anti-Mormon" attention returned to other heretical doctrinal matters.84 In the face of this development, according to one report, official counsel from the Church was to downplay the Adam-God doctrine. In 1892 George Q. Cannon advised that "[I]t 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.”85 Three years later President Wilford Woodruff made essentially the same point:

How much longer I shall talk to this people I do not know, but I want to say this to all Israel: Cease troubling yourselves about who God is who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things? . . . God is God. Christ is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be enough for you and me to know. If we want to know any more, wait till we get where God is in person. I say this because we are troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this.86

This did not, of course, stop Protestant ministers from using the issue to discredit the Church. In October 1897, for example, Mormon elders began proselyting in Fresno, California. They authored a favorable introductory article on the Church which was published in the Fresno paper. A local minister, C. A. Munn, proceeded to publish several articles of his own, in part quoting Brigham Young's April 1852 sermon. Although the elders tried to meet Munn's challenge, they failed, and mission president Ephraim H. Nye came to their aid in a rebuttal which stated that Munn had misrepresented Brigham Young's remarks by taking them out of context. Nye claimed that for Mormons, Adam "is not the God to whom we pray, nor did Brigham Young undertake to convey such an idea. We worship the being who placed Adam in the garden of Eden.”87 Pastor Munn responded that Nye's claim was not true; that the Mormon Church in fact did teach that Adam was God.

Nye appealed for assistance to Apostle Franklin D. Richards. Explaining that "this is a matter that we have got to meet continually," Nye asked Richards to indicate any errors in his reasoning. He candidly admitted that his elders were unable to handle the question, and"have to 'Dodge' it the best they can.”88 On December 16, 1897, Elder Richards met with the First Presidency and part of the Council of the Twelve and read the Fresno Morning Republican article along with President Nye's letter. Richards' diary records that Nye's letter "was read & highly approved but no action as to the dealing with Adam our F. & God subject.”89 Another apostle in attendance was Brigham Young, Jr., who, along with President Woodruff, had heard his father's remarks made in St. George on February 7, 1877. (The younger Young evidently believed his father's testimony, for he wrote in his journal the day of the Richard's discussion, "Adam is our father and God and no use to discuss it with Josephites or. any one else."90)

The next day Richards drafted a letter to Nye, as recounted in the Apostle's diary: "Sent Prest E. H. Nye letter of Decision of Council about and approving his Article to the Fresno-Republican & a copy of Prest Youngs remarks about Adam our Father as contained in Vol. 1 of Journal of Discourses." Elder Richards' letter to Nye was itself quite revealing:

On receipt of your letter of the 4th inst., I conferred with Prest. Joseph F. Smith, and we concluded to present the matter to the Council of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles. Both your letters to me, and the Article to the Fresno Republican, were read. Each of the Presidency and several of the Apostles expressed themselves well pleased with your article that it evinced skill and valor for the Truth, and they did not see how it could be much improved. The Council did not deem it wise to lay out any line of procedure in which to deal with the subject, but felt that lt is best to avoid bringing it up, and to do the best we can and as the Spirit may suggest when it is thrust upon us.

Your having got so many of the Josephites was received with marks of particular pleasure. This, like many other points of more advanced doctrine, is too precious a pearl to be cast before swine. But when the swine get hold of them, let us rescue them by the help of the Spirit as best we can. Thinking it may be convenient to you to have President Youngs sayings on that subject, I enclose a copy from his sermon in the first Volume of the Journal of Discourses. ~Dialogue, Vol.15, No.1, p.37 - p.38.

84 Cf. The True Latter-day Saints' Herald, vol. 1 (November 1860), pp. 259-65; and vol. 1 (December 1860), pp. 269-73, 280-85. A few other anti-Mormon writings from this period are briefly examined in Rodney Turner, op. cit., pp. 71-74.

85 Charles Walker Journal, June ll, 1892, LDS Archives; typescript at Lee Library. This incident involved a high council meeting at St. George where church president Wilford Woodruff and his counselor, George Q. Cannon, addressed the "false doctrines" which were being promulgated by Edward Bunker, Sr., of Bunkerville, Nevada. Bunker's beliefs were not unlike those advanced years earlier by Orson Pratt, when Pratt felt that men should worship God's intelligence rather than God himself. Woodruff's remarks made pointed reference to Brigham Young's strong refutation of Pratt's beliefs. He carefully pointed out, however, that God has and will reveal many "glorious things" which can't be "proved" by the "old Bible." (Cf. Note 76, above)

86 Discourse, April 7, 1895, reprinted in LDSMS, vol. 57, p. 355. The proscription apparently did not extend to the private councils of the hierarchy. Edward Stevenson wrote the following March, 1896, of having had "more pleasure than usual with a deep talk with Pres. L. Snow on the subject"; others spoke of discussions in October 1897 and January 1899, in addition to the December 1897 deliberations mentioned in the text. As to the identities and relative standing of the personages under discussion, Stevenson wrote in his diary for February 28, 1896: "Certainly Heloheim, and Jehovah stands before Adam, or else I am very much mistaken. Then 1st Heloheim, 2d Jehovah, 3d Michael-Adam, 4th Jesus Christ, Our Elder Brother, in the other World from whence our spirits come.... Then Who is Jehovah? The only begoton Son of Heloheim on Jehovahs world." This is in essence what Brigham told the School of the Prophets nearly three decades earlier.

87 Fresno Morning Republican, December 3, 1897; also cf. the following numbers of the Republican: October 30, 1897; November 10, 1897; November 12, 1897; November 16, 1897; November 19, 1897; and

88 Ephraim H. Nye to Franklin D. Richards, December 4, 1897, E. H. Nye Papers, Mission Letter Book, Lee Library.

89 Franklin D. Richards Journal, December 16, 1897, LDS Archives.

90 Brigham Young, Jr. Journal, December 16, 1897, LDS Archives.

91 Franklin D. Richards to Ephraim H. Nye, December 18, 1897, Franklin D. Richards Letterbook, pp. 363-64, Richards Family Collection, LDS Archives. On March 8, 1898, Richards wrote Nye indicating that he and Joseph F. Smith had tried to get Nye's article reprinted in the Deseret News, but the News declined their request.

Did FAIR forget to quote that part? So, was Joseph F. Smith right when he believed in Adam-god, or when he had his attack dog Charles Penrose denounce some "theory" that Penrose invented? Which was Spencer Kimball denouncing, the real teaching, or the made up "theory" that Penrose invented? Penrose was made an apostle shortly after this. Nice reward.

[_grindael]

Grindael, the Joseph F. Smith quote was the one I was interested in, so thanks for sharing the larger context for that. I think you are making some really excellent points. I think your position is convincing, however there are certain points that make me think Brigham Young really didn't have it all straight. All of Joseph Smith's teachings on Adam contradict Adam-God theory, in that they teach that Adam is subservient to Jesus Christ, not the other way around. Considering that Brigham Young consistently claims Joseph Smith taught Adam-God, I think we should be able to look and see if Joseph's other teachings about Adam give credence to or contradict Adam-God. In that examination I find that Joseph's teachings contradict it. My other big red flag is that Orson Pratt did not accept Adam-God, and that is the real difference for me between Brigham's stance and Spencer W. Kimball's stance; Spencer stood with a united quorum while Brigham did not. On top of that I firmly believe that prophets are allowed to apostatize to smaller and greater degrees, but in the end the Lord steadies the ark.

Ben,

Brigham did stand with a united quorum because (or did you miss it) Orson Pratt confessed his error. So we can toss that out. And even if they say they are "united" there is no way to know since the modern "apostles" and "prophets" keep all their minutes secret, don't they? There might have been some that bowed to pressure like Pratt did. That is what secrecy buys you ... doubts.

As for Jo teaching that Adam was god.. well,

Joseph taught that the Father was Jehovah. Why is he now Elohim? As Boyd Kirkland wrote,

With the interchangeability of the roles of the Father and the Son in earliest Mormon theology, it is impossible to identify specifically Joseph's first few Jehovah references as either the Father or the Son. However, after the identities of the Father and the Son were more carefully differentiated in Mormon theology around 1835, Joseph clearly began to use the divine name Jehovah to refer to the Father.16 Significantly, he apparently never specifically identified Jehovah as Jesus, nor Jehovah as the Son of Elohim.17 Rather, the Prophet followed the biblical Hebrew usage of the divine names and either combined them or used them interchangeably as epithets for God the Father. The following prayer, which he wrote in 1842, demonstrates this: "O Thou, who seest and knowest the hearts of all men-Thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah - God - Thou Elohim, that sittest, as saith the Psalmist, 'enthroned in heaven,'look down upon Thy servant Joseph at this time; and let faith on the name of Thy Son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than Thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him."18 On a few occasions, Joseph referred to the Father by just the title Elohim alone.19

Other Mormon writers during the 1830s followed this same pattern. They most often used Jehovah as the name of God the Father, and only occasionally used the name Elohim. They evidently also considered the Father to be the god who appeared in the Old Testament.20 For example, the following was published in the Times and Seasons as the Mormon belief in 1841: "We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father."21 Sunstone 9:2/37 (Aug 84)

16. D&C 109: 4, 10, 14, 22, 24, 29, 34, 42, 47, 56, 68; Joseph Smith, Jr., History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 2d ed. rev., 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1932-51), 5:94, 127; hereafter cited as History of the Church.

17. Many Latter-day Saints would point to D&C 110:3 as evidence that Joseph Smith identified Jesus as Jehovah. But the fact that Joseph called the Father Jehovah several times in his dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland temple just seven days earlier than this revelation (see note 16 above) suggests that other possible interpretations of this verse are more likely. Perhaps Joseph had not yet made a clear separation of the Father and the Son in his theology. Or, this verse in the Doctrine and Covenants might be describing the sound of Christ's voice as being like that of Jehovah's voice (rather than actually being Jehovah's voice). This interpretation is suggested by the previous parallel phrase which states "his voice as the sound of the rushing of great waters," not literally understood to be the sound of rushing waters.

18. History of the Church, 5:127.

19. See Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, comps., and eds., The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center, 1980), pp. 198, 221, 229, and 356.

20. Parley P. Pratt, A Short Account of a Shameful Outrage, Committed by a Part of the Inhabitants of the Town of Mentor, upon the Person of Elder Parley P. Pratt, While Delivering a Public Discourse upon the subject of the gospel, 7 April 1835 ([Kirtland? 1835]), p. 8; idem, Mormonism Unveiled: Zion's Watchman Unmasked; and its Editor, Mr. L. R. Sunderland, Exposed: Truth Vindicated: The Devil Mad & Priestcraft in Danger (New York: Published by author, 1838), p. 43. See also the Millennial Star 1 (January 1841): 217; 2 (April 1842): 184, 187; Times and Seasons 2 (1 September 1841): 524; History of the Church, 4:256. In the History of the Church, the name Jehovah is used ninety-nine times to mean simply God, fourteen times to mean the Father, and three times to mean Jesus. The name Elohim is used nine times to mean the Father and three times to mean "head god" or "council of gods."

21. Times and Seasons 3 (15 November 1841): 578.

Using your logic, since we have no record at all of Joseph teaching that Jesus is Jehovah, we have to throw that out too. And you are not understanding in what way Jesus was superior to Adam/Michael. Joseph taught on August 8, 1839,

The Priesthood was first given to Adam: he obtained the first Presidency & held the Keys of it, from generation to Generation; he obtained it in the creation before the world was formed as in Gen. 1, 26:28,--he had dominion given him over every living Creature. He is Michael, the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures,--Then to Noah who is Gabriel, he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office & was the Father of all living in his day, & To him was given the Dominion. These men held keys, first on earth, & then in Heaven.--

What? Then how did Michael help create the world? If he wasn't already a god, and did not have the "priesthood" until he came to earth, how in the world could he help create the earth, as the Endowment teaches?

The Priesthood is an everlasting principle & Existed with God from Eternity & will to Eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. the Keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent.--When they are revealed from Heaven it is by Adams Authority. Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him & there is given him glory & dominion.--Adam delivers up his Stewardship to Christ, that which was deliverd to him as holding the Keys of the Universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.

It is Adam who holds the "Keys of the Universe" and he delivers keys to Christ but is still the "head of the human family".

The Priesthood existed with God, not Jesus. So then Christ has to be subservient to Adam because the "keys" have to be brought from heaven under the direction of Adam. And how did Adam get "the keys of the Universe"? (Which one by the way). Why is Christ the Great High Priest of this world? Joseph Smith taught,

I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father, so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory, so that Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before; (Discourse, April 7, 1844)

As the firstborn, Jesus inherits this earth and is thus the "Great High Priest". Also Christ was the Savior, and the one and only High Priest chosen for this world to redeem it. Adam (if he were not God) could never hold the keys of the Universe. The idea is ludicrous. That is why Brigham Young was right to place Adam at the head of the entire family, both as mortal and spiritual father. Joseph continued in his 1839 Discourse,

The Spirit of Man is not a created being; it existed from Eternity & will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be Eternal. & earth, water &c --all these had their existence in an elementary State from Eternity. Our Savior speaks of Children & Says their angels always stand before my father.

The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of Man & organized them [I Abraham saw the intelligences which were organized before the world was] . He (Adam) is the head, was told to multiply. The Keys were given to him [Adam], and by him to others & he will have to give an account of his Stewardship, & they to him. The Priesthood is everlasting. The Savior, Moses, & Elias--gave the Keys to Peter, James & John on the Mount when they were transfigured before him. The Priesthood is everlasting, without beginning of days or end of years, without Father, Mother &c,--

And who was the "Ancient of Days" to Christians in Joseph's day? In the Adam Clarke Commentary (which Joseph used to "translate" his Bible Revision) on Daniel VII we read this:

The Ancient of days - God Almighty; and this is the only place in the sacred writings where God the Father is represented in a human form.

Joseph would have been well aware that the Ancient of Days was associated with the Father God. And yet, Smith calls him "Michael" and "Adam".

Smith speaks of "the Father" calling all the spirits before him at the creation of man (before the world was) Adam is the head. Why? Why not Christ? He is after all by today's Mormon teachings the God of this world, right? Who does Adam/Michael give an accounting to? His Father, Yahovah. All that have had keys (Christ included) must stand before Adam, the Ancient of days. Then Joseph speaks of the Priesthood for this earth,

If there is no change of ordinances there is no change of Priesthood. Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered there is the priesthood. How have we come at the priesthood in the last days? it came down, down in regular succession. Peter James & John had it given to them & they gave it up. Christ is the Great High priest; Adam next.--Paul speaks of the Church coming to an innumerable company of Angels, to God the Judge of all, the Spirits of Just men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of the New Covenant, &c. Heb. XII, 23. I saw Adam in the valley of Ah-dam-ondi-Ahman--he called together his children & blessed them with a Patriarchal blessing.

This world was given to Christ by his Father, therefore Christ is the Great High Priest, Adam next. It is the same principle as the Bishop of a Ward. They are first over their ward, and make judgement according to the dictates of their office. An "apostle" can't come into a Ward and usurp the Bishop's authority (just because he has a higher position). He can counsel and use his influence (which they do constantly), but he can't just come in and usurp a Bishop if the Bishop is acting within the guidelines of his office. This is the same principle as the Father and Jesus for this world. Christ is the ultimate "authority" over this world, the "Great High Priest", because of the atonement and his right as Firstborn. This world is Christ's, because the Father gave it to him. That would be Adam, who held the keys of the Universe in the pre-existence. Joseph F. Smith taught it this way,

The organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is quite as [p.124] perfect as any of the armies of the world. But some of us have been in the habit of paying but slight attention to the authority of the Priesthood; and we have come to think that to acknowledge that authority would be to stultify ourselves and to belittle ourselves in the eyes of men. I have for many years had the honor of being an Apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and for some years I have been called to act as a Counselor, first to President Taylor and then to President Woodruff. In the ward in which I live, from time to time—not often, I am sorry to say—teachers come into my house to teach me. Perhaps one is an Elder in the Melchisedek Priesthood, and another is a Priest or a Teacher in the Aaronic Priesthood. Supposing, however, that the two Teachers who come to my house are really a Priest and a Teacher in the Aaronic Priesthood. They come to my house in the capacity of Teachers. What would be my duty there? Would it belittle me to take off my hat and bow to these Teachers; invite them and my family to sit down and hear what they had to say and hearken to their counsel? I ask you, would this belittle me because I am an Apostle, or because I am Counselor to the President of the Church? Or is it my duty to respect the Teacher when he comes into my house? Is it not a part of the discipline of the Church that the Teacher shall visit the houses of the Saints? Yes; then he has authority in my house, he visits me as a member of the Church, and he comes by authority. I tell you that the man who, because he is a High Priest, or a Seventy, or an Apostle, or a President, ignores the Teacher that comes to his house to teach him is devoid of a right conception of the discipline of the Church and of the order of the Priesthood; he is in ignorance of his duty, and ought to be reprimanded or reproved, until he repents and acknowledges the right of the Teacher to visit his house to teach him whenever he is sent there. And let me tell you more: If an Apostle should ignore the Teacher that comes to teach him in his house, it would be perfectly proper for that Teacher to complain of his conduct to the Bishop, and it would be the right of the Bishop to summon him and try him on his fellowship as a member of the Church in that ward; and unless he repented and acknowledged the Lesser Priesthood just as much as though he were a lay member of the Church, the Bishop could withdraw the hand of fellowship from him. This is a part of the discipline of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I am not ashamed of it. It does not belittle me to listen to a Teacher, to obey his counsel and treat him respectfully. If I fail to do this, I prove myself unworthy of my calling and responsibility. (Joseph F. Smith, Brain Stuy, Collected Discourses Vol. 5, p.124, April 19, 1896).

Smith continues

The Lord appeared in their midst, & he (Adam) blessed them all, & foretold what should befall them to the latest generation--See D.C. Sec III 28,29 par [LDS D&C 107]--This is why Abraham blessed his posterity: He wanted to bring them into the presence of God. They looked for a city, &c.--Moses sought to bring the children of Israel into the presence of God, through the power of the Pristhood, but he could not. In the first ages of the world they tried to establish the same thing--& there were Elias's raised up who tried to restore these very glories but did not obtain them. But (Enoch did for himself & those that were with Him, but not for the world. J.T. [note inserted by John Taylor]) they prophesied of a day when this Glory would be revealed.--Paul spoke of the Dispensation of the fulness of times, when God would gather together all things in one &c&. Those men to whom these Keys have been given will have to be there. (I.E. when Adam shall again assemble his children of the Priesthood, & Christ be in their midst) the Ancient of Days come &c &c J.T.) And they without us cannot not be made perfect. These men are in heaven, but their children are on Earth. Their bowels yearn over us. God sends down men for this reason, Mat. 13. 41. & the Son of man shall send forth his Angels &c--All these authoritative characters will come down & join hand in hand in bringing about this work--

This is why Wilford Woodruff taught this in 1889 when he was "prophet":

In the first place, I will say that the Prophet Joseph taught us that Father Adam was the first man on the earth to whom God gave the keys of the Everlasting Priesthood. He held the keys of the Presidency, and was the first man who did hold them. Noah stood next to him. These keys were [p.216] given to Noah, he being the father of all living in his day, as Adam was in his day. These two men were the first who received the Priesthood in the eternal worlds, before the worlds were formed. They were the first who received the Everlasting Priesthood or Presidency on the earth. Father Adam stands at the head, so far as this world is concerned. Of course, Jesus Christ is the Great High Priest of the salvation of the human family. But Adam holds those keys in the world today; he will hold them to the endless ages of eternity. And Noah, and every man who has ever held or will hold the keys of Presidency of the Kingdom of God, from that day until the scene is wound up, will have to stand before Father Adam and give an account of the keys of that Priesthood, as we all will have to give an account unto the Lord, of the principles that we have received, when our work is done in the flesh. ~Brian Stuy, Collected Discourses Vol. 1, p. 216

Here we have Woodruff teaching exactly what I said Joseph Smith taught. Exactly. Jesus is the "Great High Priest" of the salvation of the human family. But ADAM holds those keys in the world today; he will hold them to the endless ages of eternity. Christ answers to Adam, as we answer to Christ. This is plain and simple. Joseph did teach what Young said he did. But there are bigger problems than that, for the whole thing has been cobbled together by Joseph, who taught that the Father was a Spirit, the Son the incarnation of the Father and the Holy Spirit the mind of God for the first sixteen years of his calling... and then after 1836 changed it all when he invented the Book of Abraham. God was then three people, with the Holy "Ghost" being a spirit body. Jesus was not Jehovah, that came later. In fact, Spencer Kimball was shocked when he first learned about this early in the 20th century...

“I was surprised and perhaps shocked a little when I learned that it was the Son, Jehovah, or his messengers who led Abraham from Ur to Palestine, to Egypt, and back to the land of Palestine. I did not realize that it was Jesus Christ, or Jehovah, who inspired the long line of prophets in their leadership of the people of God through those centuries.” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 8)

He probably wasn't the only one.

[_grindael]

So it took the Lord over 130 years to "steady the ark"? Right. That makes total sense. Then all those "prophets" that said they were guided by "the Lord" in those intervening years were just full of....themselves? Then why follow them? You could be following blind guides for all you know.

This, of course is NOT what Mormonism's "authorities" teach at all. Good luck promoting that. Really, your personal opinions matter little because they are only that, your opinion. You have not proven that Brigham did not understand Joseph's teachings, or not understand what he himself taught. In fact all you have done is just give your own opinion about it. I see no quotes by real "authorities" to back up what you say.

Graendel, You are tireless! I'll do my best to keep up.

First off, I appreciate your acknowledgement that Orson Pratt only united with the quorum after being threatened. We will only be able to confirm that Spencer W. Kimball's quorum's was unified if they choose to release the minutes, which if the church continues on it's recent pattern of releasing secret minutes we may seem them at some future point.

I don't agree with your interpretation of Joseph's teaching about Adam and Christ. Using your interpretation, this quote, "Then to Noah who is Gabriel, he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office & was the Father of all living in his day, & To him was given the Dominion. These men held keys, first on earth, & then in Heaven.--" would mean that Noah is second to Adam, not Christ, and that doesn't line up with Adam-God or modern godhead doctrine. That quote makes the most sense when it is assumed that Christ stands above Adam in authority.

Joseph clearly taught that Christ was superior to Adam in Priesthood authority. Here are two fantastic quotes illustrating such (both of them come from July 1829).

"Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he [who] will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family"

"Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next."

There can be no confusion with the second quote, and I find the first one to clearly indicate the superiority of Christ in Priesthood authority as well. According to the 1828 Webster's dictionary - stewardship: the office of a steward. steward: A man employed in great families to manage the domestic concerns. In other words Adam is "employed" by Christ, not the other way around.

I am aware that Joseph Smith used both Jehovah and Elohim to refer to the Father, however his revelations attribute the title to Jehovah. Following are some quotes from Joseph Smith's revelations that attribute the title of Jehovah to Jesus Christ (despite Joseph Smith not making the connection).

D&C 29:1 "Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I AM, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins;"

D&C 110:3-4 "His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying: I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father."

I believe I've already answered your other questions in my previous posts.

You have only given opinions in your previous posts. At least this post has some substance. But you are mistaken about Adam and Noah. You did not factor in what Wilford Woodruff taught (who was in a position to know EXACTLY what Joseph taught way better than you). It was not MY interpretation, but Woodruff's who said he got it directly from Joseph Smith.

Joseph was speaking of Priesthood held by Adam and Noah ON THIS EARTH. And you did not factor in that Adam, like an Apostle, could have greater authority than Christ, yet Christ would have greater authority ON THIS EARTH. That is what Joseph Smith speaks of and Woodruff affirms.

Your quotes about Jehovah are given in extreme naïvété. Joseph was teaching in 1830, (when he gave the first quote) that The Father and Jesus were one person. The Father a being of Spirit, and Jesus the mortal incarnation of the Father. He was still teaching this in 1832 when he wrote the first rendering of his claimed 1820 vision. He saw "the Lord". He wrote it that way because it was inconceivable to him at that time that the Father could appear to him as he was a "Spirit" and could not be seen by men, but only as the mortal incarnation which was Jesus Christ. You obviously did not read Boyd Kirkland's quote:

Many Latter-day Saints would point to D&C 110:3 as evidence that Joseph Smith identified Jesus as Jehovah. But the fact that Joseph called the Father Jehovah several times in his dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland temple just seven days earlier than this revelation (see note 16 above) suggests that other possible interpretations of this verse are more likely. Perhaps Joseph had not yet made a clear separation of the Father and the Son in his theology. Or, this verse in the Doctrine and Covenants might be describing the sound of Christ's voice as being like that of Jehovah's voice (rather than actually being Jehovah's voice). This interpretation is suggested by the previous parallel phrase which states "his voice as the sound of the rushing of great waters," not literally understood to be the sound of rushing waters.

That the Latter Day Saints believed in the Trinity in early Mormonism is evident from this quote, given during the same month that Joseph probably wrote his 1832 History. This was under the Title "The Excellence of Scripture",

‘The Excellence of Scripture’:

“Through Christ we understand the terms on which God will show favour and grace to the world, and by him we have ground of a PARRESIA access with freedom and boldness unto God. On his account we may hope not only for grace to subdue our sins, resist temptations, conquer the devil and the world; but having ’fought this good fight, and finished our course by patient continuance in well doing, we may justly look for glory, honor, and immortality,’ and that ‘crown of righteousness which is laid up for those who wait in faith,’ holiness, and humility, for the appearance of Christ from heaven. Now what things can there be of greater moment and importance for men to know, or God to reveal, than the nature of God and ourselves the state and condition of our souls, the only way to avoid eternal misery and enjoy everlasting bliss!

“The Scriptures discover not only matters of importance, but of the greatest depth and mysteriousness. There are many wonderful things in the law of God, things we may admire, but are never able to comprehend. Such are the eternal purposes and decrees of God, THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the manner of the operation of the Spirit of God upon the souls of men, which are all things of great weight and moment for us to understand and believe that they are, and yet may be unsearchable to our reason, as to the particular manner of them.” (The Evening And Morning Star, Vol. I, INDEPENDENCE, MO. JULY, 1832. No. 2. page 12, emphasis mine)

Calling Jesus Jehovah in 1832 would be the same as calling the Father Jehovah. Jesus, of course spoke with the voice of Jehovah because he was literally (in early Mormonism) the Father. This is attested to by the Lectures on Faith, especially Lecture V, which Joseph himself wrote,

“There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power overall things…They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;–he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh.” (Lectures on Faith, 5:2, emphasis mine)

In the questions and answers, at the end of each lecture, we find clarification:

Q. What is the Father?
A. He is a personage of glory and of power. (5:2.)…

Q. What is the Son?
A. First, he is a personage of tabernacle. (5:2.)…

Q. Why was he called the Son?
A. Because of the flesh.

Q. Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind?
A. They do.

Q. What is this mind?
A. The Holy Spirit.

There are NO later quotes of Joseph calling Jesus Jehovah. You will have to try harder if you are to convince anyone that he equated the two as the same. Then, after 1836 Joseph changes his theology and separates the Godhead into three: Jehovah (the Father), Christ (the Son), and the Holy Ghost and claims that he has always taught that there are three Gods. He wrote this in 1839:

26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now;

27 Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory;

28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest.

29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ. (Section 121, D&C)

In 1841, this was published in the Times and Seasons,

“We believe in God the Father, who is the great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father; yet he is our Savior, Redeemer, King, and Great Prototype;-was offered as a sacrifice to make an atonement for sin-rose from the dead with the same flesh and bones, not blood, and ascended to heaven, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.” Times and Seasons, 3:578 (15 November 1841).

Two distinct personages now, but the Father is still Jehovah. In this letter by Smith to Wilson Law in 1842, he calls Jehovah ‘the Eloheim’:

“Shall we shrink at the onset? No! Let every man's brow be as the face of a lion; let his breast be as unshaken as the mighty oak, and his knee confirmed as the sapling of the forest' and by the voice and loud roar of the cannon; and the loud peals and thundering of artillery; and by the voice of the thunderings of heaven as upon Mount Sinai; and by the voice of the heavenly hosts; and by the voice of the eternal God; and by the voice of innocent blood; and by the voice of innocence; and by the voice of all that is sacred and dear to man, let us plead the justice of our cause; trusting in the arm of Jehovah, the Eloheim, who sits enthroned in the heavens; that peradventure He may give as the victory; and if we bleed, we shall bleed in a good cause, in the cause of innocence and truth; and from henceforth will there not be a crown of glory for us? And will not those who come after hold our names in sacred remembrance? And will our enemies dare to brand us with cowardly reproach?” History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.5, p.94

He separates Jesus from this personage in his diary entry of August 23, 1842:

“There are many souls whom I have loved stronger than death. To them I have proved faithful—to them I am determined to prove faithful, until God calls me to resign up my breath. O Thou, who seest and knowest the hearts of all men—Thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah—God—Thou Eloheim, that sittest, as saith the Psalmist, "enthroned in heaven," look down upon Thy servant Joseph at this time; and let faith on the name of THY SON Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than Thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him, even the faith of Elijah; and let the lamp of eternal life be lit up in his heart, never to be taken away; and let the words of eternal life be poured upon the soul of Thy servant, that he may know [p.128] Thy will, Thy statutes, and Thy commandments, and Thy judgments, to do them.” History of the Church, Vol.5, ch.6, p.127

Here Smith calls JEHOVAH – GOD - THOU ELOHEIM, and his SON JESUS CHRIST. The title Jehovah is here given to the Father, not the son. In a Proclamation to the World in April of 1845, the Twelve reversed the order and affirmed:

“KNOW YE:— THAT the kingdom of God has come: as has been predicted by ancient prophets, and prayed for in all ages; even that kingdom which shall fill the whole earth, and shall stand for ever.

The great Eloheem Jehovah has been pleased once more to speak from the heavens: and also to commune with man upon the earth, by means of open visions, and by the ministration of HOLY MESSENGERS. By this means the great and eternal High Priesthood, after the Order of HIS Son, even the Apostleship, has been restored; or, returned to the earth.”

Where are any quotes where these men call Jesus Jehovah? Not to be found.

And Orson Pratt may have been threatened, but he was converted. He later made reference to Adam-god in a positive light in one of his later discourses. But he did not have to acknowledge that Young was right and he was wrong. He could have just shut up about it. Pratt did not want to do that though.

You have not given any convincing evidence that you are correct about what Joseph taught. As Boyd Kirkland wrote,

The gods involved in the creation were designated in Joseph's temple endowment ceremony as Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael.26 Joseph had previously identified Michael as "Adam the ancient of days" (D&C 27:11). Whether he identified either this Elohim or Jehovah to be God the Father as he had previously used these titles is unclear. We have seen that he used the title Elohim in various modes, none of which included Jesus, and he also used the name Jehovah to refer the Father. Given all of these possibilities, to Joseph's endowment ceremony, then, did not seem to include Jesus among the creation gods. This is a curious situation, since many scriptural passages previously produced through Joseph, as well as the Bible, attribute a major role in the creation to Jesus.27 Unfortunately, Joseph Smith was killed before he was able to elaborate further on these newer, more esoteric ideas. ~Sunstone 9:2/38 (Aug 84)

In the final months of his life Joseph gave the endowment ceremony to Brigham Young who later said that, "this is not arranged right but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I... wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies..." (Diary of L. John Nuttall, 7 Feb. 1877)

Joseph could easily have taught Brigham Young about Adam during that time period, as Brigham Young attested on three occasions that Joseph did indeed teach him the Adam-god Doctrine. It is not a stretch to believe this, because Joseph had changed his theology from a Trinity of ONE GOD in his early teachings, to two flesh and bone gods in his later years. This was Joseph's pattern, change what he did not like, or when he was influenced by something he read or came in contact with, and add or delete scriptures when his authority was challenged to strengthen that authority (as with the Angelic Priesthood Ordinations). The problem you have, is that you (and Spencer Kimball) are calling Brigham Young a liar (without ANY proof) if you don't believe him, for he certainly understood what he was teaching, (as did his apostles - as Wilford Woodruff attests) and Young claimed that he got it from Joseph Smith and that God also revealed it to him.

[_grindael]

Grindael, I will follow up with all the information you have put out there later tonight, but in the mean time let's continue the conversation about priesthood.

Wilford Woodruff's quote does not appear to me to indicate that Adam has higher authority than Christ. His "of course" introduction to the statement about Christ as High Priest seems to me to indicate that he teaching here that Christ has superior authority to Adam. It is not at all surprising that Wilford Woodruff would be teaching something different than Adam-God in this quote. In fact, it is extremely likely that he would NOT be teaching Adam-God considering this quote is from 1889, just 4 years after his own counsel to the Saints deemphasizing Adam-God and commanding the Elder's to end their speculation on the subject.

You said, "...ADAM holds those keys in the world today; he will hold them to the endless ages of eternity," however the Joseph Smith quote I offered in my last post refutes that. Adam will deliver his stewardship up to Christ, that which was given to him as to holding the keys of the universe. Webster's 1828 definition for universe is: "U'NIVERSE, n. [L. universitas. ]The collective name of heaven and earth, and all that belongs to them; the whole system of created things." Adam retains his standing as head of the family, but the authority over the entire system of creation, which Adam was temporarily entrusted with (according to the term stewardship), is given to Christ. Joseph Smith placed Christ above Adam in the eternal worlds, and I see no evidence that he was teaching something parallel to Adam-God in any of his quotes on priesthood authority and Adam or Michael.

Wilford Woodroof has regressed in his quote, in my opinion, to this interpretation of Priesthood authority that Joseph Smith taught.

Nice try, but you can't reconcile this part of Woodruff's teaching,

These two men [Adam & Noah] were the first who received the Priesthood in the eternal worlds, before the worlds were formed.

That would place both of them superior to Christ. Priesthood authority seniority goes by ordination date. Adam held all of the keys before Christ. He turns them over to Christ because Christ is given this earth. And why would Adam be entrusted with the keys to the entire Universe? That makes no sense if he was subordinate to Christ. He would only need the keys to this earth. Especially if Christ was the pre-existent God Jehovah. But there is where you are going wrong. Joseph never taught that.

Wilford Woodruff is referring to Joseph's teaching on Adam and Gabriel. In that set of teachings on Priesthood, which we have been quoting and Wilford Woodruff refers to, assumes Christ as Lord and God. In it Joseph taught that Michael was the "archangel". According to the 1828 webster dictionary, "ARCHAN'GEL, n. 1. An angel of the highest order;" Then later Joseph says, "the Son of man shall send forth his Angels." Why does Adam receive the priesthood first? Because he the archangel, the only angel referred to with that title. The prefix arch- means highest or chiefest, so Adam is the first of the Angels, and first to receive the priesthood, Noah is 2nd.

In a revelation Joseph lays out the hierarchy as follows, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman--the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo-man." I see that the arch-angel became the arch-man but still not superior to Son-Ahman

It is my opinion that Joseph is referring to Adam as the highest in authority next to Christ. I think he says Adam receives it first, because in Joseph's mind Christ is God and the source of the priesthood, thus the name of the priesthood, the "Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God".

Once again Ben, you are talking about when Joseph taught that the Father and the Son were one being, and was teaching a hierarchy that is Protestant. (And that also applied to angels - they were not men then, - that 1832 "revelation" proves my point - that came later) Try again. http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... march-1832

[_grindael]

I believe the quote found in the center of all that cut and paste is the clincher in terms of defining Joseph's view on Priesthood authority.

"Adam holds the Keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times, i.e. the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations that have [been and] are to be revealed . . . . This then is the nature of the priesthood, every man holding the presidency of his dispensation and one man holding the presidency of them all even Adam, and Adam receiving his presidency and authority from Christ, but cannot receive a fulness, untill [sic] Christ shall present the kingdom to the Father which shall be at the end of the last dispensation." (Discourse, October 5, 1840, original ms. in handwriting of Robert B. Thompson, LDS Archives, as cited in Ehat and Cook, op. cit., pp. 39-40; cf. HC, vol. rV, pp. 207-09.)

Joseph Smith preached Christ at the head of the priesthood and Adam next in authority.

I believe I already quoted from that discourse and I understand that Buerger is not making the same connection. But Joseph was leading to something and he revealed it just before he died, as William and Wilson Law attest in their Nauvoo Expositor:

Nauvoo Expositor 1:1, Resolution #2, June 7, 1844.

Inasmuch as we have for years borne with the individual follies and iniquities of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and many of the official characters, and having laboured with them repeatedly with all Christian love, meekness, and humility, yet to no effect, we feel as if forebearance has ceased to be a virtue and hope reformation vain. And inasmuch as they have introduced false and damnable doctrines into the church such as; a plurality of Gods above the God of this universe; and his liability to fall with all of His creations; the plurality of wives; unconditional sealing up.

This is Adam-God and Joseph taught it. See Fred Collier, http://books.google.com/books?id=ppd0lI ... h.&f=false

[_grindael]

As far as I iknow, Anson Call is the only one who ever gave an account of Joseph teaching about Adam as a resurrected being who then fell. "Anson Call:

“On one occasion when Brother Joseph (Smith) was cutting wood, there came to him some brethren and I was among them. We said, 'Brother Joseph, we have some questions to ask, and we will cut your wood while you answer them' 'all right', said Joseph, and we went into the house. Joseph placed his arms across his knees, bent over as if in meditation, and then said, 'now for your questions.'

We said to him; 'what about the creation of the world; how was it inhabited?' Joseph answered and said; 'I will tell you how it was. You and I were in the spirit world at the grand council, and there we were spirits together. We saw and heard that council, and heard them talk of formation of the world and we were among those when the morning stars sang together and when the sons of God shouted for joy. We were among those who had more courage than others and therefore we came down here and took bodies. Some who did not have the courage said, 'Father, we have fought Satan face to face here in the spirit world and helped to cast him down there and now to go down and fight him again face to face, we are afraid we shall never return to thy presence and would prefer a less degree of glory and go some other of your creations where we are sure of -returning.' 'Yes, you and I had more courage and came down here of our own agency and choice.'

Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet - an immortalized being and brought his wife, eve, with him, and by eating of the fruits of this earth became subject to death and decay and he became of the earth earthly, was made mortal and subject to death. 12th Ch. Rev. 7 and on.”

You notice that Anson does not take the opportunity to say that Joseph equated "the Father" and Adam. I think this is potentially an accurate account of a teaching from Joseph Smith that could have been transformed into Adam-God.

George Laub reports Joseph giving a similar account about other resurrected beings breaking celestial laws in order to come to this earth, "Now the history of Joseph[u]s in Speaking of angels came down and took themselves wives of the daughters of men, See Geneses 6 Chapter 1-2, verses. These ware resurrected Bodies, Violated the Celestial laws." (George gives an April 1843 date, but it's most likely April 1844 considering just before this entry he gives his notes on the King Follett sermon and also marks it April 1843)

I don't see a pattern where Joseph's new revelations glaringly contradict his past revelations. If Joseph indeed taught something like Anson Call suggests I don't believe he would have taught it in a way that places Adam in a more exalted station than Christ. I believe that to be the glaring flaw in Adam-God as Brigham Young (and Heber C. Kimball) originally taught it.

Ben, Anson Call made that statement in 1877, so I don't trust it. But the Expositor statement shows that Joseph was teaching the basic elements of Adam-god. It is not much different than him changing his early doctrine from one God Jesus/Father to two Jesus & Father. It was what he did. But to say there is no evidence that Brigham Young didn't get it from Joseph is wrong. You are quibbling. Joseph taught that Adam held the keys of the Universe, and that places him over Christ, but as TO THIS WORLD, Adam (as he "fell" with his creations") was subservient to Christ as Savior and Firstborn who would inherit it from Adam. This was Joseph's progressive Doctrine of Deity, and Young got it from him, and then claimed he also received a confirmatory "revelation" from God about it.

BenBritton, but there are a number of Joseph's statements and concepts that also mesh really well with BY's teachings of the AG Doctrine. You have to look at all the statements of his, instead of cherrypicking and drawing a definitive conclusion.

First, in the creation story, Joseph explained the temple characters this way: The Father (our Father) had acted under the direction of a "head god" and a "council of gods in the creation of the worlds." Once the earth had been organized, "the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us." From the context of Joseph's discussions of this head god, it is apparent that the Prophet clearly considered this being to be a patriarchal superior to the father of Jesus. This meshes perfectly with Brigham's statement (acc. to JFS journal) that Elohim, Yahovah and Michael were father, Son and grandson. The way Mormons understand this heave

Second, most Christians read the Bible quite correctly when they associate the Ancient of Days in Dan 7 with God himself. Joseph was actually making a very controversial statement when he declared that Adam was the Ancient of Days.

Third, look at the implications of these statements from the TPJS:

How have we come at the Priesthood in the last days? It came down, down, in regular succession. Peter, James, and John had it given to them and they gave it to others. Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next. (HC 3:387-388; this infers: Peter/James/John --> Christ --> Adam)

He begins to become even more explicit than this:

Our Savior speaks of children and says, Their angels always stand before my father. The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. The keys were first given to him, and by him to others .... The keys have to brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adams authority. (HC 3:386,387; not only does this infer The Father (of spirits) is Adam, but it explicity says he's THE HEAD and whenever keys are revealed from heaven, it's by HIS authority, not Christ's.)

Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the “Ancient of Days,” or in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of whom it is said in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth. Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times; i.e., the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations that are to be revealed. “Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to his good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself: that in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.” (HC 4:207-208)

Clearly, Joseph did not always teach that Adam was subservient to Christ.

Fourth, perhaps an even stronger point, BY explicitly said, on multiple occasions, that Joseph taught this doctrine. Not that Adam was the first man, the great Archangel, or held a special place in priesthood authority, but BY explicitly said Joseph taught the doctrine that Adam was the father of Jesus and the father of our spirits.

Fifth, I don't find it coincidental that many of Joseph's closest insiders were strong advocates of the doctrine. BY, HCK, Eliza Snow, Benjamin Johnson, Helen Mar Whitney (who also explicitly said BY was not the author of the teaching, but that Joseph was), etc. Why would these devoted people of the Prophet, who spent many hours in council with the prophet all endorse such a radically different teaching if Joseph had not taught it himself?

This issue (whether Joseph is the author of the AG doctrine) is more grey than you would like to believe.

(HC 3:387-388; this infers: Peter/James/John --> Christ --> Adam)

I don't see (that quote) that way, Iamse7en.

That progression would be Adam - others like Moses - Elijah (etc) - Christ - P, J, J, - Joseph Smith, (the earthly line of the Priesthood).

Joseph was fleshing out his new theology from 1838 -1844 (the rudiments of it developed in 1836) not long after the Lectures on Faith were published. This came about from his study of Hebrew, which he then applied to the Book of Abraham (his interpretation of the translation of elohim). We have what I quoted from in 1839:

26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now;
27 Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory;
28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be bone God or many gods, they shall be manifest.
29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

He says right there explicitly that there was a time to come when nothing would be "withheld", whether there be one God or many gods. This was in 1839! On June 16, 1844 he says,

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!

Really? Now we know that isn't true. It just isn't. So Joseph contradicted Joseph. There is no way to draw a line and say that Joseph taught this, which led to this, which led to this... without seeing contradictions. This is true, and what is really important and all that matters here:

Clearly, Joseph did not always teach that Adam was subservient to Christ.