ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/gdm/archive/gdm.9810

Internet Message Format | 1998-10-30 | 85KB

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> The Misery of Polygamy
Date: 18 Oct 1998 23:43:33 -0600


THE MISERY OF POLYGAMY

'WE'RE STUCK.' SAYS WIFE NO.1

A Personal Account of Plural Marriage
By WINA STURGEON

September 11-24, 1 998
Salt Lake Observer
Smart Local News
(c) 1998 Silver King News Corp.
VOLUME I NUMBER VII $1.00

The unhappiness of plural marriage is not a burden that Sharon Smith bears
alone.

"I don't think she's any happier than I am," said Ms. Smith of her 'sister
wife,' who lives 15 miles away.

"The irony is this: It was Ms. Smith's idea to add another wife.

Sharon Smith isn't her real name, of course. To be identified might Mean
the loss of her job as a public school teacher.
Polygamy in Utah is enduring another round of scrutiny and criticism as
allegations of child abuse and incest have surfaced in
recent weeks. To avoid prosecution as well as persecution, the family Ms.
Smith belongs to - two wives, a husband, 11
children - keeps its Marital arrangement secret

"About 11 years after we were married, I encouraged my husband to take
another wife. I grew up that way and believed in it,"
said the softspoken Ms. Smith, who is in her late 40's. "I thought it was
the right thing do."

Raised in a home that was part of Utah's largest polygamist clans, she was
the youngest of 25 siblings.

But Ms. Smith, in trying to follow her religion, lost most of her faith -
as feelings of inadequacy, the pain of competing for her
husband's attenion and the hardship of being essentially a single parent
overwhelmed her..

                                 - CONTINUED ON PAGE 18 -

Polygamy

                                 - CONTINUED FROM PAGE I -

"The hardest thing for me was the sexual relationship. I remember when
they came home after their honeynoon, I kept so busy
that I couldn't possibly think. I wouldn't allow myself to stop. just the
memory hurts," she said.

'My heart and my head has gone from the belief, just going through the
hardship and the jealousy. But the reason I'm still with
my husband is because I love him. And he loves me," Ms. Smith said, adding
that she thinks she is the preferred wife.

"I think he is as unhappy about it as I am. But it's a commitment" she
said. "He's taking responsibility for our decision." And,
practically speaking, she sees no other choice. She has eight children.
Her sister wife has three.

"We're stuck," she said.

"People out there say, 'Oh it's all for the man,' but I think it's hell
for them too. Why would they marry if it was just for sex?
Why take on all that responsibility?"

It's easy to understand the present- day secrecy and clannishness of
Polygamy if you view it in historical context. 'Me early
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was so persecuted for the
practice that at one point the U.S. government sent an
army to Salt Lake City to crack down. But some LDS church leaders secretly
continued the practice after officially banning it in
order to achieve statehood for Utah. 'Me discomfort and ambivalence among
LDS Church

leaders and state officials stems partly from this painful past and partly
because Mormon doctrine still holds that polygamy will
be practiced in the highest level of Heaven.

That theological promise doesn't do much to ease the difficulty of being a
practicing polygamist on Earth, however.

"It was pretty tough being raised as a polygamist child," said Ms. Smith.
-Me other kids would throw rocks at us and call us
names. Every friend I ever had abandoned me as soon as they found out I
was a polygamist kid. Every one of them."

She was brought up to believe that the outside world was going to 'get'
her. "And it was kind of proved to me, because as a
kid, they always had."

Ms. Smith was about 6 years old when the last government raids on Utah's
polygamist communities took place. At the time, her
mother told her she might have to go live with an older sister.

"She was trying not to scare me to death, but she said she might not be
able to see me for a long time. She said, 'Dad and I
might be here tomorrow, but we might not, and if that's the case, remember
that we love you.' She was terrified about Dad
going to jail and us kids being taken away."

The raids reinforced the need for secrecy and also increased the taunts
from other youngsters, Ms. Smith said.


"I begged my parents to let me stay home from school. I would cry all the
way there because I was so afraid of everyone," she
said.

Home schooling became the escape from playground persecution. But there
was fear at home, too: Ms. Smith remembers her
grandfather as an abusive man.

"He was the ultimate chauvinist pig. Some of that rubbed off on my mother,
and some on us, which was to fear God. If you did
exactly as God wanted, then he would look out for you, but if you didn't,
you would be punished."

She married at age 17 and for a time, when her children were young, she
and her sister wife lived together


"because then (her husband) could be there and be with the children. I've
done so many things with my children alone that I
resent because he should have been there."

Ms. Smith said the factor that finally made her wake up and abandon her
religious convictions was the pain of repressing her
troubled feelings.

"We're taught those feelings of jealousy or sadness are bad, and not to be
angry, to be calm, to be sweet," she said. "If you feel
negative feelings, then it's your fault, there's something wrong with you.
I spent my whole fife stuffing my feelings down, over
and over and over again."

She got depressed. She gained a lot of weight "I just wanted to stay in
bed all the time, because I felt like a failure. The biggest
thing was the feeling of inadequacy. It didn't matter how hard I tried, I
could never match up," Ms. Smith said.

Such feelings were exacerbated by a sense of having to compete for a
husband's attention.

"It's not so much that he will leave if a woman isn't submissive, but his
time is so rare if there are a lot of wives. And you always
fear that if you cause trouble, he's going to love her more," Ms. Smith
said. "There's always that within the women. Some
men promote it. Some women make sure to always treat him like a king,
because that will keep them in favor.

"This is another thing that has to do with the man. The man is the one who
takes you to the Celestial Kingdom. Therefore, if the
man isn't the one leading the way,

then you don't have a chance. He is supposed to be the spiritual leader,
but if he isn't, then you do what you have to do on your
own, but there is no benefit to that No matter what you do, if there isn't
a man leading, you just don't belong."

Polygamists also believe part of God's plan is for them to have large
families, but Ms. Smith was distressed by this even as a
child.

"There are people who can't take care of the children they have, yet they
keep on having more. They think that's what they are
supposed to do, and God will provide."

And if God provides through public assistance, so be it. Government
efforts to crack down on Polygamists who abuse welfare
- or who abuse their wives and children - won't stop the practice, Ms.
Smith said.

"It's God's law, and God's laws are higher than those of man," she said.

She sees this as the coming battleground: Polygamists who have children
they can't support vs. taxpayers who are repelled by
the practice and don't want to subsidize it.

Despite such controversy, plural marriage is a growing movement. With each
new wave of attention, outsiders come to join.
And their children often grow up and marry into the system.

To Ms. Smith, this is nothing less than a tragedy.

Not long ago she
met a Middle Eastern couple whose religion and government permit polygamy.


"I asked the wife if she would ever want him to take another wife, and she
said, 'I might someday.' I wanted to tell her, 'No,
don't. Don't.'"



Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 18 Oct 1998 23:41:12 -0600

Building the Kingdom with Total Honesty
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: gdm

I enjoyed and empathized very much with Robert Anderson's article on "The
Dilemma of the Mormon Rationalist," and appreciated the response of Allen
Roberts, both in the winter 1997 issue. I wish to Comment on two of
President Hinckley's recent statements cited by Roberts.

The first was President Hinckley's response to questions asked by the
national media about the Mormon doctrines of God having once been a man,
and about the potential of humans to become gods (on p. 99). Roberts found
Hinckley's responses, which seemed to be questioning the validity of these
ideas, to be "refreshingly honest and human." However, I believe his
equivocating to be just an extension of Mormon leaders' efforts since the
turn of the century to publicly distance the church from its more radical
teachings, in order to make it appear more mainstream. it's difficult for
me to imagine that President Hinckley seriously questions doctrines which
have been central to the Mormon concepts of God and man ever since Joseph
Smith proclaimed them in Nauvoo. The second statement of President
Hinckley referred to by Roberts was his seemingly callous dismissal of the
five intellectuals excommunicated by the church, explaining "... that
given the baptism of hundreds of thousands of new members that year, the
loss of five was insignificant" (on p. 100).

[Letters to the Editor page v]

Roberts wonders if "the worth of souls is no longer great in the eyes of
God." I wondered the same thing many years ago as a result of my own
inquiries of the brethren regarding an issue then troubling me.
Ironically, that issue also concerned church leaders' public equivocation
on the topic of the Mormon doctrine of God.

For several years, beginning with challenges presented to me in the
mission field, I had been struggling with the many conflicting statements
of church leaders about the Adam-God doctrine. Initially, I deemed the
subject to be one of those dangerous "mysteries" best left to the
proverbial "backburner." Much new provocative material on the subject was
coming to light in the mid-1970s through the early 1980s, however, and was
being used very effectively by anti-Mormons to attack the church and its
leaders. Concerned, and feeling my own testimony challenged, I wrote a
letter to President Spencer W.

Kimball in the summer of 1980, asking why he, as well as Mark E. Petersen,
Bruce R. McConkie, and other general authorities, had been so vocally
denouncing the Adam- God doctrine, while at the same time denying that
Brigham Young had been the source of the idea, when there was an abundance
of good evidence to the contrary (for example, see Kimball, Ensign, Nov.
1975, 77: Petersen, Adam: Who Is He?

[Deseret Book, 1976], 7, 13-24; and McConkie, "Adam-God Theory," Mormon
Doctrine [Bookcraft, 1966], 18; "The Seven Deadly Heresies," 1980
Devotional Speeches of the Year [BYU Press, 1981]). 1 pointed out that
this approach created a double dilemma for church members aware of the
facts: first, how a prophet (Brigham) could claim as revelation and
promote to the church an idea deemed by later leaders to be a dangerous
heresy: and, second, why later church leaders would dishonestly deny the
true source of the "heresy," claiming it originated with "enemies of the
church." Neither proposition felt very comfortable to me, a faithful
member raised to believe that church leaders, particularly the prophet,
could never lead the church astray, and that they were honorable,
trustworthy men. I indicated in my letter, and truly believed it at the
time, that I felt this dilemma was simply the result of a misunderstanding
or lack of information on the part of the brethren. I suggested that a
thorough investigation of the subject might be undertaken by the church
historian's office to provide better information to the general
authorities.

My letter received no response, and in that fall's general conference both
brothers Petersen and McConkie again spoke out strongly against the
Adam-God doctrine in their usual forceful manner (see Ensign, Nov. 1980,
16-18, 50-52). Dismayed, I phoned the First Presidency's office and spoke
with their secretary, Michael Watson, about my letter, asking why I hadn't
received a response. He indicated that the brethren had intended to write
to me, with the recommendation that I read Mark E. Petersen's book Adam:
Who Is He?, but when it was pointed out that I had already read the book,
and felt it to be part of the problem, they felt they had nothing else
they could say to me. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I felt I had
somehow failed to properly communicate the problem. At Michael Watson's
prompting, I met with an informal committee answering to Mark E. Petersen,
which had been set up to help members confronted with issues

[Page vi Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought]

raised by fundamentalist Mormons (the Adam-God doctrine being one of the
chief of these). I'll spare you the details here, but the net result of my
meetings with these people began to make me realize that Brother Petersen
wasn't acting out of ignorance of the facts regarding the Adam- God
problem, and neither was Bro. McConkie. I still wondered about the extent
of President Kimball's knowledge of the subject, however. I suspected that
my letter had never reached him.

In February 1981 1 again phoned Michael Watson, and urged him to grant me
a personal interview, which he did. He was surprisingly candid with me,
revealing that my letter to President Kimball had been forwarded to Mark
E. Petersen. Brother Watson showed me a memo written by Brother Petersen
to the First Presidency with his recommendations as to how to respond to
me. He informed them that the issues I had raised were real, that Brigham
Young had indeed taught these things, but that they could not acknowledge
this lest I would "trap them" into saying this therefore meant Brigham was
a false prophet (which, of course, they did not believe).. He therefore
recommended that I be given a very circuitous response, evading the issue,
which he volunteered to write. I asked Brother Watson, as well as members
of the committee I had previously met with, how this approach would help
people like myself who knew better? Wasn't there concern that some might
be dismayed and disillusioned by their church leaders' lack of candor?
Their response was very similar to President Hinckley's statement
mentioned earlier about losing a few through excommunication: they said,
in essence, "If a few people lose their testimonies over this, so be it;
it's better than letting the true facts be known, and dealing with the
probable wider negative consequences to the mission of the church." I
said, "What about Jesus' parable where the shepherd leaves the ninety and
nine of his flock to pursue the one who has gone astray?" Again the
response was that the brethren had to be more concerned for the majority
of the flock.

Since it became abundantly clear to me that I would never find the answers
I was seeking from church leaders, I continued to pursue the subject on my
own. The end results were three essays published in Sunstone and Dialogue:
A Journal of Mormon Thought, two of which were later published in Line
Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, edited by Gary Bergera and published
by Signature Books (cited by Anderson, 80n35). So it is from this
perspective that I have difficulty accepting at face value President
Hinckley's hedging about the Mormon doctrine of God. I have it on very
good authority that building the kingdom is a greater priority than total
honesty. Joseph Smith had already set that precedent with his public
denials about polygamy when he was secretly practicing it in Nauvoo. The
ends justify the means.

And looking back on this episode now, I see how incredibly naive it was of
me to expect it to be otherwise.

Boyd Kirkland

Newhall, California



Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies:
Date: 28 Oct 1998 20:39:00 -0700

[Sections related to Adam God.]

The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict Within the Quorums,
1853 to 1868 Gary James Bergera*

Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.41

Brigham Young's speculations on Adam-God continued to be the center of no
small controversy among church members. His belief77 that Adam was at once
the spiritual as well as the physical father of all persons born on this
world, including Jesus Christ, was never completely accepted during his
lifetime despite frequent reference to it by various church authorities.
Even within the presiding quorums, it appears that Pratt was not alone in
his discomfort with Young's theological innovation. Apostle George Q.
Cannon, counselor to Young, may have been alluding to Adam-God when he
recorded in his journal, after Young's death,

[footnote:77 Young maintained that the doctrine of Adam-God was revealed
to him by God. See the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308. He was to also
assert that he was merely espousing what had been earlier revealed to him
by Joseph Smith. See note 51. There exists, however, no reliable evidence
contemporary to Smith's lifetime which lends support to such a view. The
more likely candidate is his First Counselor, Heber C. Kimball. Both
Stenhouse (op cit., p. 561 footnote) and Pratt (note 53) attributed the
initial creation of Adam as God to Kimball. With his death in 1868 Young
lost perhaps the only church authority whose personal committment to
Adam-God equalled his own.

As mentioned, Young also claimed to have received this teaching from God.
No amount of research can prove (or disaprove) the personal nature of
revelation, divine or otherwise. Yet whether Young attributed Adam-God to
Joseph Smith or revelation, the church President was not above inventing
support for beliefs where none existed previously. Consider his comments
to fellow Mormons on 8 October 1854:

[W]ere I under the necessity of making scripture extensively I should get
Bro. Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen
him do this when any of the Elders have been pressed by their opponents,
and were a little at a loss, he would make a scripture for them to suite
the case, that never was in the bible, though none the less true, and make
their opponents swallow it as the words of an apostle, or [one] of the
prophets. The Elder would then say, 'Please turn to that scripture,
[gentlemen] and read It for yourselves.' No, they could not turn to it but
they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught. I will
venture to make a little. (Speech, 8 October 1854, Brigham Young
Collection, LDS Archives.)

On several occasions the President declared that his words were as
legitimate as any found in the standard works of Mormon canon: "I say now,
when they [Young's sermons] are copied and approved by me they are as good
Scripture as is couched in this Bible" (Discourse, 6 October 1870, in JD
13:264).]


Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President
Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not
approve of it, and felt oppressed and yet they dared not exhibit their
feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt
that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that
he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held. I
have been greatly surprised to find so much dissatisfaction in such
quarters.... [S]ome even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took
liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled.78

[footnotes: 79 For the unpopularity of Adam-God among rank-and-file
members during Young's lifetime, see the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p.
308; LDSMS, Vol. 16, p. 482; and JD 5:331.

78 Journal of George Q. Cannon, 17 January 1878, as cited in Joseph J.
Cannon, "George Q. Cannon--Relations with Brigham Young," The Instructor,
Vol. 80 (June 1945), p. 259.]

While plural marriage enraged the American populace, Young's ill-fated
Adam-God doctrine exerted a similar, though less intense effect within
Mormon Israel.79 The unpopular doctrine declined in official espousal
during the succeeding administrations of John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff,
and church faithful today who entertain such a heretical notion become
liable to official church censure.80

[Footnote:     80 Most treatments of Adam-God am severely marred by their
authors' personal beliefs. Fred C. Collier has compiled a useful
collection of statements relating to Young's speculations, entitled "The
Mormon God" (1974) (unpublished). Rodney Turner's 1953 master of Arts
thesis, "The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint's Scripture and
Theology," is perhaps the most balanced, though incomplete.]


Several of Pratt's unpopular ideas have now found acceptance among such
influential twentieth century church exegetes as Joseph Fielding Smith.
Elder Pratt would have no doubt agreed with Smith's doctrine: "I believe
that God knows all things and that his understanding is perfect, not
'relative.' I have never seen or heard of any revealed fact to the
contrary. I believe that our Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ are
perfect. I offer no excuse for the simplicity of my faith." [Emphasis in
original]81 Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine shows a kindred debt to
Pratt's theories in his sections on "God," the "Godhead," and "Eternal
Progression."82 Reliance on Pratt is strong and surprising.83

[footnotes: 81 Joseph Fielding Smith, op cit., 1:8. Smith's views on
Adam-God also parallel those of Pratt. See ibid., pp. 96-106.

82 See Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd Edition (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, Inc., 1966), pp. 317-21, and 238-9, respectively.

83 Several of Pratt's theories on the attributes of godliness and
omnipresence of the Holy Spirit were adapted by later church writers. See,
Charles W. Penrose, Discourse, Salt Lake City, 16 November 1884, in JD
26:18-29; B. H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year, The
Doctrine of Diety (1910), p. 198; and Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man and the
Universe (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1968), pp. 109-43.]

Recent studies of Joseph Smith's "inspired translation" of the Bible have
contributed to a much greater Utah appreciation of the Prophet's
efforts.84 The Church's 1979 publication of the King James version, with
Joseph Smith's amendations, unquestionably helped lay to rest the majority
of Brigham Young's reservations. Even Lucy Mack Smith has been largely
vindicated in modern research.85

[footnotes: 84 See Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph
Smith's Translation of the Bible--A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah:
Brigham Young University Press, 1975); and Stephen R. Knecht, The Story of
Joseph Smith's Bible Translation--A Documented History (Salt Lake City:
Associated Research Consultants, 1977).

85 In Richard L. Anderson's opinion, "Lucy Smith's memories of the early
years of the rise of Mormonism have a demonstrable degree of accuracy"
(Richard L. Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision
Through Reminiscences," Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring
1969), No. 3, p. 391).

Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.42


Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies:
Date: 28 Oct 1998 22:00:05 -0700

[Sections related to Adam God.]

The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict Within the Quorums,
1853 to 1868 Gary James Bergera*

Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.41

Brigham Young's speculations on Adam-God continued to be the center of no
small controversy among church members. His belief77 that Adam was at once
the spiritual as well as the physical father of all persons born on this
world, including Jesus Christ, was never completely accepted during his
lifetime despite frequent reference to it by various church authorities.
Even within the presiding quorums, it appears that Pratt was not alone in
his discomfort with Young's theological innovation. Apostle George Q.
Cannon, counselor to Young, may have been alluding to Adam-God when he
recorded in his journal, after Young's death,

[footnote:77 Young maintained that the doctrine of Adam-God was revealed
to him by God. See the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308. He was to also
assert that he was merely espousing what had been earlier revealed to him
by Joseph Smith. See note 51. There exists, however, no reliable evidence
contemporary to Smith's lifetime which lends support to such a view. The
more likely candidate is his First Counselor, Heber C. Kimball. Both
Stenhouse (op cit., p. 561 footnote) and Pratt (note 53) attributed the
initial creation of Adam as God to Kimball. With his death in 1868 Young
lost perhaps the only church authority whose personal committment to
Adam-God equalled his own.

As mentioned, Young also claimed to have received this teaching from God.
No amount of research can prove (or disaprove) the personal nature of
revelation, divine or otherwise. Yet whether Young attributed Adam-God to
Joseph Smith or revelation, the church President was not above inventing
support for beliefs where none existed previously. Consider his comments
to fellow Mormons on 8 October 1854:

[W]ere I under the necessity of making scripture extensively I should get
Bro. Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen
him do this when any of the Elders have been pressed by their opponents,
and were a little at a loss, he would make a scripture for them to suite
the case, that never was in the bible, though none the less true, and make
their opponents swallow it as the words of an apostle, or [one] of the
prophets. The Elder would then say, 'Please turn to that scripture,
[gentlemen] and read It for yourselves.' No, they could not turn to it but
they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught. I will
venture to make a little. (Speech, 8 October 1854, Brigham Young
Collection, LDS Archives.)

On several occasions the President declared that his words were as
legitimate as any found in the standard works of Mormon canon: "I say now,
when they [Young's sermons] are copied and approved by me they are as good
Scripture as is couched in this Bible" (Discourse, 6 October 1870, in JD
13:264).]


Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President
Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not
approve of it, and felt oppressed and yet they dared not exhibit their
feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt
that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that
he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held. I
have been greatly surprised to find so much dissatisfaction in such
quarters.... [S]ome even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took
liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled.78

[footnotes: 79 For the unpopularity of Adam-God among rank-and-file
members during Young's lifetime, see the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p.
308; LDSMS, Vol. 16, p. 482; and JD 5:331.

78 Journal of George Q. Cannon, 17 January 1878, as cited in Joseph J.
Cannon, "George Q. Cannon--Relations with Brigham Young," The Instructor,
Vol. 80 (June 1945), p. 259.]

While plural marriage enraged the American populace, Young's ill-fated
Adam-God doctrine exerted a similar, though less intense effect within
Mormon Israel.79 The unpopular doctrine declined in official espousal
during the succeeding administrations of John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff,
and church faithful today who entertain such a heretical notion become
liable to official church censure.80

[Footnote:     80 Most treatments of Adam-God am severely marred by their
authors' personal beliefs. Fred C. Collier has compiled a useful
collection of statements relating to Young's speculations, entitled "The
Mormon God" (1974) (unpublished). Rodney Turner's 1953 master of Arts
thesis, "The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint's Scripture and
Theology," is perhaps the most balanced, though incomplete.]


Several of Pratt's unpopular ideas have now found acceptance among such
influential twentieth century church exegetes as Joseph Fielding Smith.
Elder Pratt would have no doubt agreed with Smith's doctrine: "I believe
that God knows all things and that his understanding is perfect, not
'relative.' I have never seen or heard of any revealed fact to the
contrary. I believe that our Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ are
perfect. I offer no excuse for the simplicity of my faith." [Emphasis in
original]81 Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine shows a kindred debt to
Pratt's theories in his sections on "God," the "Godhead," and "Eternal
Progression."82 Reliance on Pratt is strong and surprising.83

[footnotes: 81 Joseph Fielding Smith, op cit., 1:8. Smith's views on
Adam-God also parallel those of Pratt. See ibid., pp. 96-106.

82 See Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd Edition (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, Inc., 1966), pp. 317-21, and 238-9, respectively.

83 Several of Pratt's theories on the attributes of godliness and
omnipresence of the Holy Spirit were adapted by later church writers. See,
Charles W. Penrose, Discourse, Salt Lake City, 16 November 1884, in JD
26:18-29; B. H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year, The
Doctrine of Diety (1910), p. 198; and Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man and the
Universe (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1968), pp. 109-43.]

Recent studies of Joseph Smith's "inspired translation" of the Bible have
contributed to a much greater Utah appreciation of the Prophet's
efforts.84 The Church's 1979 publication of the King James version, with
Joseph Smith's amendations, unquestionably helped lay to rest the majority
of Brigham Young's reservations. Even Lucy Mack Smith has been largely
vindicated in modern research.85

[footnotes: 84 See Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph
Smith's Translation of the Bible--A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah:
Brigham Young University Press, 1975); and Stephen R. Knecht, The Story of
Joseph Smith's Bible Translation--A Documented History (Salt Lake City:
Associated Research Consultants, 1977).

85 In Richard L. Anderson's opinion, "Lucy Smith's memories of the early
years of the rise of Mormonism have a demonstrable degree of accuracy"
(Richard L. Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision
Through Reminiscences," Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring
1969), No. 3, p. 391).

Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.42


[I found the following interesting letters to the editor.]

----------

[I was looking for quotes on A-G and stumbled onto this.  It appears from
Bergera's research that it is clear that A-G was once considered worthy of
a controversy rather than an excuse as it is often attributed as a
misquote by Brigham Young.]

The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict Within the Quorums,
1853 to 1868 Gary James Bergera*

Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.41

Brigham Young's speculations on Adam-God continued to be the center of no
small controversy among church members. His belief77 that Adam was at once
the spiritual as well as the physical father of all persons born on this
world, including Jesus Christ, was never completely accepted during his
lifetime despite frequent reference to it by various church authorities.

Even within the presiding quorums, it appears that Pratt was not alone in
his discomfort with Young's theological innovation. Apostle George Q.
Cannon, counselor to Young, may have been alluding to Adam-God when he
recorded in his journal, after Young's death,

[footnote:77 Young maintained that the doctrine of Adam-God was revealed
to him by God. See the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308. He was to also
assert that he was merely espousing what had been earlier revealed to him
by Joseph Smith. See note 51. There exists, however, no reliable evidence
contemporary to Smith's lifetime which lends support to such a view. The
more likely candidate is his First Counselor, Heber C. Kimball. Both
Stenhouse (op cit., p. 561 footnote) and Pratt (note 53) attributed the
initial creation of Adam as God to Kimball. With his death in 1868 Young
lost perhaps the only church authority whose personal committment to
Adam-God equalled his own.

As mentioned, Young also claimed to have received this teaching from God.

No amount of research can prove (or disaprove) the personal nature of
revelation, divine or otherwise. Yet whether Young attributed Adam-God to
Joseph Smith or revelation, the church President was not above inventing
support for beliefs where none existed previously. Consider his comments
to fellow Mormons on 8 October 1854:

[W]ere I under the necessity of making scripture extensively I should get
Bro. Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen
him do this when any of the Elders have been pressed by their opponents,
and were a little at a loss, he would make a scripture for them to suite
the case, that never was in the bible, though none the less true, and make
their opponents swallow it as the words of an apostle, or [one] of the
prophets. The Elder would then say, 'Please turn to that scripture,
[gentlemen] and read It for yourselves.' No, they could not turn to it but
they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught. I will
venture to make a little. (Speech, 8 October 1854, Brigham Young
Collection, LDS Archives.)

On several occasions the President declared that his words were as
legitimate as any found in the standard works of Mormon canon: "I say now,
when they [Young's sermons] are copied and approved by me they are as good
Scripture as is couched in this Bible" (Discourse, 6 October 1870, in JD
13:264).]

Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President
Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not
approve of it, and felt oppressed and yet they dared not exhibit their
feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt
that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that
he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held. I
have been greatly surprised to find so much dissatisfaction in such
quarters.... [S]ome even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took
liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled.78

[footnotes: 79 For the unpopularity of Adam-God among rank-and-file
members during Young's lifetime, see the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p.

308; LDSMS, Vol. 16, p. 482; and JD 5:331.

78 Journal of George Q. Cannon, 17 January 1878, as cited in Joseph J.
Cannon, "George Q. Cannon--Relations with Brigham Young," The Instructor,
Vol. 80 (June 1945), p. 259.]

While plural marriage enraged the American populace, Young's ill-fated
Adam-God doctrine exerted a similar, though less intense effect within
Mormon Israel.79 The unpopular doctrine declined in official espousal
during the succeeding administrations of John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff,
and church faithful today who entertain such a heretical notion become
liable to official church censure.80

[Footnote: 80 Most treatments of Adam-God am severely marred by their
authors' personal beliefs. Fred C. Collier has compiled a useful
collection of statements relating to Young's speculations, entitled "The
Mormon God" (1974) (unpublished). Rodney Turner's 1953 master of Arts
thesis, "The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint's Scripture and
Theology," is perhaps the most balanced, though incomplete.]

Several of Pratt's unpopular ideas have now found acceptance among such
influential twentieth century church exegetes as Joseph Fielding Smith.

Elder Pratt would have no doubt agreed with Smith's doctrine: "I believe
that God knows all things and that his understanding is perfect, not
'relative.' I have never seen or heard of any revealed fact to the
contrary. I believe that our Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ are
perfect. I offer no excuse for the simplicity of my faith." [Emphasis in
original]81 Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine shows a kindred debt to
Pratt's theories in his sections on "God," the "Godhead," and "Eternal
Progression."82 Reliance on Pratt is strong and surprising.83

[footnotes: 81 Joseph Fielding Smith, op cit., 1:8. Smith's views on
Adam-God also parallel those of Pratt. See ibid., pp. 96-106.

82 See Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd Edition (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, Inc., 1966), pp. 317-21, and 238-9, respectively.

83 Several of Pratt's theories on the attributes of godliness and
omnipresence of the Holy Spirit were adapted by later church writers. See,
Charles W. Penrose, Discourse, Salt Lake City, 16 November 1884, in JD
26:18-29; B. H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year, The
Doctrine of Diety (1910), p. 198; and Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man and the
Universe (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1968), pp. 109-43.]

Recent studies of Joseph Smith's "inspired translation" of the Bible have
contributed to a much greater Utah appreciation of the Prophet's
efforts.84 The Church's 1979 publication of the King James version, with
Joseph Smith's amendations, unquestionably helped lay to rest the majority
of Brigham Young's reservations. Even Lucy Mack Smith has been largely
vindicated in modern research.85

[footnotes: 84 See Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph
Smith's Translation of the Bible--A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah:
Brigham Young University Press, 1975); and Stephen R. Knecht, The Story of
Joseph Smith's Bible Translation--A Documented History (Salt Lake City:
Associated Research Consultants, 1977).

85 In Richard L. Anderson's opinion, "Lucy Smith's memories of the early
years of the rise of Mormonism have a demonstrable degree of accuracy"
(Richard L. Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision
Through Reminiscences," Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring
1969), No. 3, p. 391).

Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.42


Dialogue, Vol.14, No.1, p.5

Gary Bergera's timely study of the doctrinal conflicts between Orson Pratt
and President Brigham Young was an important addition to the available
information on the Adam-God dilemma. He apparently found himself squeezed
between what the source materials reveal and what the Church has reported
on their contents in semi-official statements. His article slaughtered
several sacred cows. The words of many leaders cum historians were
sacrificed.

Take for example Joseph Fielding Smith's unequivocal statement that,
"President Brigham Young did not believe and did not teach that Jesus
Christ was begotten by Adam. (Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions,
A Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums, 1972-73, page
22.)

Similar sentiments have been expressed in the apologetic treatise by Mark
E. Petersen entitled "Adam; Who Is He?" Both of these men had access to
the source documents that Bergera quotes, especially Brother Smith. Did
these brethren not know better?

Bergera's study opens the can of worms so wide that we are faced with the
fact the Brigham did, indeed, believe it and taught it against all odds.

He did not, however, claim it as his own doctrine but said that he learned
it at Luke Johnson's home before 1838 from the lips of Joseph Smith as a
secret doctrine. Those who deny that Joseph taught Adam-God must explain
the enormous credit Joseph gave to Adam. The following list can be made
simply by reading pages 157, 158, 167, and 168 of Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith:

Adam (1) presides over the spirits of all men, (2) reveals the keys of the
Priesthood to men, (3) holds dominion over every creature, (4) all who
hold keys must answer to him, (5) holds the keys of the Universe, (6)
organized the spirits of all men in creation, (7) is the head, (8) held
the keys first and gives them to all others, (9) reveals Christ unto men,
(10) holds the keys of ALL dispensations, (11) is the first and father of
all, (12) is the Ancient of Days, (13) reveals ordinances from heaven, and
(14) angels are subject to his dominion.

These facts are apparent even before we begin to look into the book of
Daniel and compare the attributes and actions of the Ancient of Days with
Adam. Joseph, of course, shocked theologians of other religions by
establishing Adam as the Ancient of Days. From the tremendous glory of his
person as told by Daniel and John the Revelator, all other religions,
including the Jews, equated the Ancient of Days with Jehovah or Christ.

After reviewing Joseph's teachings, one must admit that Joseph could have
taught that Adam was God.

According to Presidential secretary L. John Nuttall, Joseph himself called
Brigham Young to organize and systematize the temple endowment ceremonies.

He did so and he finalized the veil lecture which was used in temples from
1877 until the first decade of the 1900s. In this lecture Brigham taught
Adam-God in great clarity. (See L. John Nuttall Journal, February 8, 1877,
and the entire lecture, printed in Unpublished Revelations by Fred C.
Collier, pages 113-118).

Assuming Joseph authored both the temple endowment and the translation of
the Book of Abraham, a comparison of the two tells us something about
Adam-God. We are taught that Elohim, Jehovah and Michael (Adam) were the
three who created the world. Abraham 4:1 says, "And then the Lord said:
"Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is
the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth." Temple goers
will clearly see that Michael (Adam) is here referred to as a God.

Denying the possibility that Joseph was the originator of the Adam-God
doctrine, Bergera attributes it to "a misunderstanding or
misinterpretation of Joseph Smith's earlier teachings about Adam." (See
article footnote 51). This releases Bergera from simply calling Brigham a
liar to merely accusing him of doctrinal heresy due to ignorance.

One would think that a prophet of God like Brigham, whom God personally
affirmed by miraculous vision to a congregation of members seeking a new
leader, would certainly not be allowed by that God to teach the Church a
false God for twenty-five years. Bergera finds Brigham guilty of that
charge. To do otherwise would bring modern Church doctrines into question.

Has the modern Church, after all, found its second prophet guilty of
heresy and exonerated Orson Pratt?

Joseph said that Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball (another Adamist) were
the only two who did not "lift their heel" against him. (DHC 5:411).

Pratt, on the other hand, was excommunicated in August of 1842, may have
attempted suicide (See ibid. 5:60, 61, 138), opposed the selection of
Brigham Young as Church President in 1847, and continued in conflict with
him for years thereafter.

It appears that the Church has finally adopted most of Pratt's
speculations on the Godhead.  T. Edgar LyonÆs observation that Orson Pratt
did more to formulate the Mormon's idea of God .. . than any other person
in the Church, with the exception of Joseph Smith," may be a total
understatement. If, as Brigham claimed three times, Joseph did teach
Adam-God, Orson did more than Joseph Smith in that area.

    Merle H. Graffam
    Palm Desert, California
    Dialogue, Vol.14, No.1, p.6


Dialogue, Vol.15, No.3, p.5

The article by Buerger on Adam-God was very good but a more thorough
examination is in Culley Christensen's The Adam-God Maze ($14.95,
Independent Publishers, Box 8375, Scottsdale, Arizona 85252).

...

There seems to be some expectation that if Joseph Smith had believed in
Adam-God he would have made that clear. Assuming that he grasped the full
implications of the idea it is doubtful, however, that he would have
treated this differently than other "advanced" matters such as polygamy or
the endowment and he certainly would have sensed that it would have been
too explosive--especially given the other problems be was experiencing.

Even Brigham admitted that even in the confines of Utah he probably had
revealed too much about the nature of God. While the article mentions that
Brigham, Ben Johnson, and Helen Kimball (one of Joseph's wives) attested
to Joseph's preaching of Adam-God it failed to note that Eliza R. Snow,
John Taylor, and Anson Call, among others, also offered evidence for the
doctrine's origin with Joseph. (See Christensen's book).

Gradually the matter was treated as an advanced mystery and eventually
when the associates of Brigham passed away, general ignorance set in so
that leaders sincerely believed that Brigham had never said such things.

[I have a heard time imaging this being a credible possibility, they had
access to the JD's and would have grown up hearing about AG.]

One could make an analogy with the death of the apostles in early
Christianity and the loss of the vital oral tradition Nibley, Search, and
others have documented. Today it is clear that unless they are
knowledgeable but, like the authorities at the turn of the century, trying
not to "cast pearls before swine," contemporary Church leaders are
uninformed on the subject. It is doubtful that they would approach the
subject with open and prayerful minds because the concept is so radical
and there would doubtless be great resistance to having to eat words, as
happened when the revelation on priesthood was received. Before anyone
embraces the critics of Adam-God too quickly, the accuracy of Charles W.

Penrose, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and Mark E. Petersen,
among others, should be contemplated as to historical and theological
issues. Their blatant errors would suggest that we should not dismiss
Adam-God as so much speculation.

The real question is simply whether Brigham was right. He declared in no
uncertain terms that Adam-God was doctrine and revelation and few things
have been declared such so clearly. To reject his words would be to raise
serious questions about prophetic reliability. I suggest that Brigham knew
whereof he spoke and the rest of us need to catch up.

(Name withheld)

Dialogue, Vol.15, No.3, p.6

---------------------------

Dialogue, Vol.15, No.4, p.6

Father's Testimony

I received the Spring 1982 DIALOGUE yesterday, and read with great
interest the history of the Adam-God Doctrine by David John Buerger.

I was born November 1915 so this doctrine has been part of the mainstream
of my life. I had a father who studied scriptures and shared them with his
family. I was his youngest living child and did much writing for him of
his compilations of references in support of this concept--Michael,
Jehovah, and Eloheim, representing the Father, Son, and Spirit.

For me, it is unthinkable to depart from or forsake so many evidences of
eternal truth which these references contain.

In addition to my father's testimony, I have found many Christian
evidences before Mormonism, of the Eloheim (in Hebrew) being the divine
Spirit that directed the work of Creation. Jehovah is the Redeemer and
Beloved Son Jesus Christ. The Ancient of Days is the Father and God of the
human family!

In an age when leaders are exempt from making mistakes, I believe it is
important to rely on the evidence of truth, more than what a few leaders
approve, because their denouncements do not give intelligent answers to
anyone's positive questions. As members of the Church we are required to
sit and listen, and respond with undoubting and unquestioning trust in
whoever is chosen to lead us. With no voice and no choice, is this being
true to one's self? I do not believe it is!

Rhoda Thurston Hyde Park, Utah

Dialogue, Vol.15, No.4, p.6




Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies:
Date: 29 Oct 1998 05:00:05 -0700

[Sections related to Adam God.]

The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict Within the Quorums,
1853 to 1868 Gary James Bergera*

Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.41

Brigham Young's speculations on Adam-God continued to be the center of no
small controversy among church members. His belief77 that Adam was at once
the spiritual as well as the physical father of all persons born on this
world, including Jesus Christ, was never completely accepted during his
lifetime despite frequent reference to it by various church authorities.
Even within the presiding quorums, it appears that Pratt was not alone in
his discomfort with Young's theological innovation. Apostle George Q.
Cannon, counselor to Young, may have been alluding to Adam-God when he
recorded in his journal, after Young's death,

[footnote:77 Young maintained that the doctrine of Adam-God was revealed
to him by God. See the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308. He was to also
assert that he was merely espousing what had been earlier revealed to him
by Joseph Smith. See note 51. There exists, however, no reliable evidence
contemporary to Smith's lifetime which lends support to such a view. The
more likely candidate is his First Counselor, Heber C. Kimball. Both
Stenhouse (op cit., p. 561 footnote) and Pratt (note 53) attributed the
initial creation of Adam as God to Kimball. With his death in 1868 Young
lost perhaps the only church authority whose personal committment to
Adam-God equalled his own.

As mentioned, Young also claimed to have received this teaching from God.
No amount of research can prove (or disaprove) the personal nature of
revelation, divine or otherwise. Yet whether Young attributed Adam-God to
Joseph Smith or revelation, the church President was not above inventing
support for beliefs where none existed previously. Consider his comments
to fellow Mormons on 8 October 1854:

[W]ere I under the necessity of making scripture extensively I should get
Bro. Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen
him do this when any of the Elders have been pressed by their opponents,
and were a little at a loss, he would make a scripture for them to suite
the case, that never was in the bible, though none the less true, and make
their opponents swallow it as the words of an apostle, or [one] of the
prophets. The Elder would then say, 'Please turn to that scripture,
[gentlemen] and read It for yourselves.' No, they could not turn to it but
they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught. I will
venture to make a little. (Speech, 8 October 1854, Brigham Young
Collection, LDS Archives.)

On several occasions the President declared that his words were as
legitimate as any found in the standard works of Mormon canon: "I say now,
when they [Young's sermons] are copied and approved by me they are as good
Scripture as is couched in this Bible" (Discourse, 6 October 1870, in JD
13:264).]


Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President
Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not
approve of it, and felt oppressed and yet they dared not exhibit their
feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt
that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that
he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held. I
have been greatly surprised to find so much dissatisfaction in such
quarters.... [S]ome even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took
liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled.78

[footnotes: 79 For the unpopularity of Adam-God among rank-and-file
members during Young's lifetime, see the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p.
308; LDSMS, Vol. 16, p. 482; and JD 5:331.

78 Journal of George Q. Cannon, 17 January 1878, as cited in Joseph J.
Cannon, "George Q. Cannon--Relations with Brigham Young," The Instructor,
Vol. 80 (June 1945), p. 259.]

While plural marriage enraged the American populace, Young's ill-fated
Adam-God doctrine exerted a similar, though less intense effect within
Mormon Israel.79 The unpopular doctrine declined in official espousal
during the succeeding administrations of John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff,
and church faithful today who entertain such a heretical notion become
liable to official church censure.80

[Footnote:     80 Most treatments of Adam-God am severely marred by their
authors' personal beliefs. Fred C. Collier has compiled a useful
collection of statements relating to Young's speculations, entitled "The
Mormon God" (1974) (unpublished). Rodney Turner's 1953 master of Arts
thesis, "The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint's Scripture and
Theology," is perhaps the most balanced, though incomplete.]


Several of Pratt's unpopular ideas have now found acceptance among such
influential twentieth century church exegetes as Joseph Fielding Smith.
Elder Pratt would have no doubt agreed with Smith's doctrine: "I believe
that God knows all things and that his understanding is perfect, not
'relative.' I have never seen or heard of any revealed fact to the
contrary. I believe that our Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ are
perfect. I offer no excuse for the simplicity of my faith." [Emphasis in
original]81 Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine shows a kindred debt to
Pratt's theories in his sections on "God," the "Godhead," and "Eternal
Progression."82 Reliance on Pratt is strong and surprising.83

[footnotes: 81 Joseph Fielding Smith, op cit., 1:8. Smith's views on
Adam-God also parallel those of Pratt. See ibid., pp. 96-106.

82 See Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd Edition (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, Inc., 1966), pp. 317-21, and 238-9, respectively.

83 Several of Pratt's theories on the attributes of godliness and
omnipresence of the Holy Spirit were adapted by later church writers. See,
Charles W. Penrose, Discourse, Salt Lake City, 16 November 1884, in JD
26:18-29; B. H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year, The
Doctrine of Diety (1910), p. 198; and Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man and the
Universe (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1968), pp. 109-43.]

Recent studies of Joseph Smith's "inspired translation" of the Bible have
contributed to a much greater Utah appreciation of the Prophet's
efforts.84 The Church's 1979 publication of the King James version, with
Joseph Smith's amendations, unquestionably helped lay to rest the majority
of Brigham Young's reservations. Even Lucy Mack Smith has been largely
vindicated in modern research.85

[footnotes: 84 See Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph
Smith's Translation of the Bible--A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah:
Brigham Young University Press, 1975); and Stephen R. Knecht, The Story of
Joseph Smith's Bible Translation--A Documented History (Salt Lake City:
Associated Research Consultants, 1977).

85 In Richard L. Anderson's opinion, "Lucy Smith's memories of the early
years of the rise of Mormonism have a demonstrable degree of accuracy"
(Richard L. Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision
Through Reminiscences," Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring
1969), No. 3, p. 391).

Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.42


[I found the following interesting letters to the editor.]

----------

[I was looking for quotes on A-G and stumbled onto this.  It appears from
Bergera's research that it is clear that A-G was once considered worthy of
a controversy rather than an excuse as it is often attributed as a
misquote by Brigham Young.]

The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict Within the Quorums,
1853 to 1868 Gary James Bergera*

Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.41

Brigham Young's speculations on Adam-God continued to be the center of no
small controversy among church members. His belief77 that Adam was at once
the spiritual as well as the physical father of all persons born on this
world, including Jesus Christ, was never completely accepted during his
lifetime despite frequent reference to it by various church authorities.

Even within the presiding quorums, it appears that Pratt was not alone in
his discomfort with Young's theological innovation. Apostle George Q.
Cannon, counselor to Young, may have been alluding to Adam-God when he
recorded in his journal, after Young's death,

[footnote:77 Young maintained that the doctrine of Adam-God was revealed
to him by God. See the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308. He was to also
assert that he was merely espousing what had been earlier revealed to him
by Joseph Smith. See note 51. There exists, however, no reliable evidence
contemporary to Smith's lifetime which lends support to such a view. The
more likely candidate is his First Counselor, Heber C. Kimball. Both
Stenhouse (op cit., p. 561 footnote) and Pratt (note 53) attributed the
initial creation of Adam as God to Kimball. With his death in 1868 Young
lost perhaps the only church authority whose personal committment to
Adam-God equalled his own.

As mentioned, Young also claimed to have received this teaching from God.

No amount of research can prove (or disaprove) the personal nature of
revelation, divine or otherwise. Yet whether Young attributed Adam-God to
Joseph Smith or revelation, the church President was not above inventing
support for beliefs where none existed previously. Consider his comments
to fellow Mormons on 8 October 1854:

[W]ere I under the necessity of making scripture extensively I should get
Bro. Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen
him do this when any of the Elders have been pressed by their opponents,
and were a little at a loss, he would make a scripture for them to suite
the case, that never was in the bible, though none the less true, and make
their opponents swallow it as the words of an apostle, or [one] of the
prophets. The Elder would then say, 'Please turn to that scripture,
[gentlemen] and read It for yourselves.' No, they could not turn to it but
they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught. I will
venture to make a little. (Speech, 8 October 1854, Brigham Young
Collection, LDS Archives.)

On several occasions the President declared that his words were as
legitimate as any found in the standard works of Mormon canon: "I say now,
when they [Young's sermons] are copied and approved by me they are as good
Scripture as is couched in this Bible" (Discourse, 6 October 1870, in JD
13:264).]

Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President
Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not
approve of it, and felt oppressed and yet they dared not exhibit their
feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt
that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that
he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held. I
have been greatly surprised to find so much dissatisfaction in such
quarters.... [S]ome even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took
liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled.78

[footnotes: 79 For the unpopularity of Adam-God among rank-and-file
members during Young's lifetime, see the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p.

308; LDSMS, Vol. 16, p. 482; and JD 5:331.

78 Journal of George Q. Cannon, 17 January 1878, as cited in Joseph J.
Cannon, "George Q. Cannon--Relations with Brigham Young," The Instructor,
Vol. 80 (June 1945), p. 259.]

While plural marriage enraged the American populace, Young's ill-fated
Adam-God doctrine exerted a similar, though less intense effect within
Mormon Israel.79 The unpopular doctrine declined in official espousal
during the succeeding administrations of John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff,
and church faithful today who entertain such a heretical notion become
liable to official church censure.80

[Footnote: 80 Most treatments of Adam-God am severely marred by their
authors' personal beliefs. Fred C. Collier has compiled a useful
collection of statements relating to Young's speculations, entitled "The
Mormon God" (1974) (unpublished). Rodney Turner's 1953 master of Arts
thesis, "The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint's Scripture and
Theology," is perhaps the most balanced, though incomplete.]

Several of Pratt's unpopular ideas have now found acceptance among such
influential twentieth century church exegetes as Joseph Fielding Smith.

Elder Pratt would have no doubt agreed with Smith's doctrine: "I believe
that God knows all things and that his understanding is perfect, not
'relative.' I have never seen or heard of any revealed fact to the
contrary. I believe that our Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ are
perfect. I offer no excuse for the simplicity of my faith." [Emphasis in
original]81 Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine shows a kindred debt to
Pratt's theories in his sections on "God," the "Godhead," and "Eternal
Progression."82 Reliance on Pratt is strong and surprising.83

[footnotes: 81 Joseph Fielding Smith, op cit., 1:8. Smith's views on
Adam-God also parallel those of Pratt. See ibid., pp. 96-106.

82 See Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd Edition (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, Inc., 1966), pp. 317-21, and 238-9, respectively.

83 Several of Pratt's theories on the attributes of godliness and
omnipresence of the Holy Spirit were adapted by later church writers. See,
Charles W. Penrose, Discourse, Salt Lake City, 16 November 1884, in JD
26:18-29; B. H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year, The
Doctrine of Diety (1910), p. 198; and Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man and the
Universe (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1968), pp. 109-43.]

Recent studies of Joseph Smith's "inspired translation" of the Bible have
contributed to a much greater Utah appreciation of the Prophet's
efforts.84 The Church's 1979 publication of the King James version, with
Joseph Smith's amendations, unquestionably helped lay to rest the majority
of Brigham Young's reservations. Even Lucy Mack Smith has been largely
vindicated in modern research.85

[footnotes: 84 See Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph
Smith's Translation of the Bible--A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah:
Brigham Young University Press, 1975); and Stephen R. Knecht, The Story of
Joseph Smith's Bible Translation--A Documented History (Salt Lake City:
Associated Research Consultants, 1977).

85 In Richard L. Anderson's opinion, "Lucy Smith's memories of the early
years of the rise of Mormonism have a demonstrable degree of accuracy"
(Richard L. Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision
Through Reminiscences," Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring
1969), No. 3, p. 391).

Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.42


Dialogue, Vol.14, No.1, p.5

Gary Bergera's timely study of the doctrinal conflicts between Orson Pratt
and President Brigham Young was an important addition to the available
information on the Adam-God dilemma. He apparently found himself squeezed
between what the source materials reveal and what the Church has reported
on their contents in semi-official statements. His article slaughtered
several sacred cows. The words of many leaders cum historians were
sacrificed.

Take for example Joseph Fielding Smith's unequivocal statement that,
"President Brigham Young did not believe and did not teach that Jesus
Christ was begotten by Adam. (Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions,
A Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums, 1972-73, page
22.)

Similar sentiments have been expressed in the apologetic treatise by Mark
E. Petersen entitled "Adam; Who Is He?" Both of these men had access to
the source documents that Bergera quotes, especially Brother Smith. Did
these brethren not know better?

Bergera's study opens the can of worms so wide that we are faced with the
fact the Brigham did, indeed, believe it and taught it against all odds.

He did not, however, claim it as his own doctrine but said that he learned
it at Luke Johnson's home before 1838 from the lips of Joseph Smith as a
secret doctrine. Those who deny that Joseph taught Adam-God must explain
the enormous credit Joseph gave to Adam. The following list can be made
simply by reading pages 157, 158, 167, and 168 of Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith:

Adam (1) presides over the spirits of all men, (2) reveals the keys of the
Priesthood to men, (3) holds dominion over every creature, (4) all who
hold keys must answer to him, (5) holds the keys of the Universe, (6)
organized the spirits of all men in creation, (7) is the head, (8) held
the keys first and gives them to all others, (9) reveals Christ unto men,
(10) holds the keys of ALL dispensations, (11) is the first and father of
all, (12) is the Ancient of Days, (13) reveals ordinances from heaven, and
(14) angels are subject to his dominion.

These facts are apparent even before we begin to look into the book of
Daniel and compare the attributes and actions of the Ancient of Days with
Adam. Joseph, of course, shocked theologians of other religions by
establishing Adam as the Ancient of Days. From the tremendous glory of his
person as told by Daniel and John the Revelator, all other religions,
including the Jews, equated the Ancient of Days with Jehovah or Christ.

After reviewing Joseph's teachings, one must admit that Joseph could have
taught that Adam was God.

According to Presidential secretary L. John Nuttall, Joseph himself called
Brigham Young to organize and systematize the temple endowment ceremonies.

He did so and he finalized the veil lecture which was used in temples from
1877 until the first decade of the 1900s. In this lecture Brigham taught
Adam-God in great clarity. (See L. John Nuttall Journal, February 8, 1877,
and the entire lecture, printed in Unpublished Revelations by Fred C.
Collier, pages 113-118).

Assuming Joseph authored both the temple endowment and the translation of
the Book of Abraham, a comparison of the two tells us something about
Adam-God. We are taught that Elohim, Jehovah and Michael (Adam) were the
three who created the world. Abraham 4:1 says, "And then the Lord said:
"Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is
the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth." Temple goers
will clearly see that Michael (Adam) is here referred to as a God.

Denying the possibility that Joseph was the originator of the Adam-God
doctrine, Bergera attributes it to "a misunderstanding or
misinterpretation of Joseph Smith's earlier teachings about Adam." (See
article footnote 51). This releases Bergera from simply calling Brigham a
liar to merely accusing him of doctrinal heresy due to ignorance.

One would think that a prophet of God like Brigham, whom God personally
affirmed by miraculous vision to a congregation of members seeking a new
leader, would certainly not be allowed by that God to teach the Church a
false God for twenty-five years. Bergera finds Brigham guilty of that
charge. To do otherwise would bring modern Church doctrines into question.

Has the modern Church, after all, found its second prophet guilty of
heresy and exonerated Orson Pratt?

Joseph said that Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball (another Adamist) were
the only two who did not "lift their heel" against him. (DHC 5:411).

Pratt, on the other hand, was excommunicated in August of 1842, may have
attempted suicide (See ibid. 5:60, 61, 138), opposed the selection of
Brigham Young as Church President in 1847, and continued in conflict with
him for years thereafter.

It appears that the Church has finally adopted most of Pratt's
speculations on the Godhead.  T. Edgar LyonÆs observation that Orson Pratt
did more to formulate the Mormon's idea of God .. . than any other person
in the Church, with the exception of Joseph Smith," may be a total
understatement. If, as Brigham claimed three times, Joseph did teach
Adam-God, Orson did more than Joseph Smith in that area.

    Merle H. Graffam
    Palm Desert, California
    Dialogue, Vol.14, No.1, p.6


Dialogue, Vol.15, No.3, p.5

The article by Buerger on Adam-God was very good but a more thorough
examination is in Culley Christensen's The Adam-God Maze ($14.95,
Independent Publishers, Box 8375, Scottsdale, Arizona 85252).

...

There seems to be some expectation that if Joseph Smith had believed in
Adam-God he would have made that clear. Assuming that he grasped the full
implications of the idea it is doubtful, however, that he would have
treated this differently than other "advanced" matters such as polygamy or
the endowment and he certainly would have sensed that it would have been
too explosive--especially given the other problems be was experiencing.

Even Brigham admitted that even in the confines of Utah he probably had
revealed too much about the nature of God. While the article mentions that
Brigham, Ben Johnson, and Helen Kimball (one of Joseph's wives) attested
to Joseph's preaching of Adam-God it failed to note that Eliza R. Snow,
John Taylor, and Anson Call, among others, also offered evidence for the
doctrine's origin with Joseph. (See Christensen's book).

Gradually the matter was treated as an advanced mystery and eventually
when the associates of Brigham passed away, general ignorance set in so
that leaders sincerely believed that Brigham had never said such things.

[I have a heard time imaging this being a credible possibility, they had
access to the JD's and would have grown up hearing about AG.]

One could make an analogy with the death of the apostles in early
Christianity and the loss of the vital oral tradition Nibley, Search, and
others have documented. Today it is clear that unless they are
knowledgeable but, like the authorities at the turn of the century, trying
not to "cast pearls before swine," contemporary Church leaders are
uninformed on the subject. It is doubtful that they would approach the
subject with open and prayerful minds because the concept is so radical
and there would doubtless be great resistance to having to eat words, as
happened when the revelation on priesthood was received. Before anyone
embraces the critics of Adam-God too quickly, the accuracy of Charles W.

Penrose, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and Mark E. Petersen,
among others, should be contemplated as to historical and theological
issues. Their blatant errors would suggest that we should not dismiss
Adam-God as so much speculation.

The real question is simply whether Brigham was right. He declared in no
uncertain terms that Adam-God was doctrine and revelation and few things
have been declared such so clearly. To reject his words would be to raise
serious questions about prophetic reliability. I suggest that Brigham knew
whereof he spoke and the rest of us need to catch up.

(Name withheld)

Dialogue, Vol.15, No.3, p.6

---------------------------

Dialogue, Vol.15, No.4, p.6

Father's Testimony

I received the Spring 1982 DIALOGUE yesterday, and read with great
interest the history of the Adam-God Doctrine by David John Buerger.

I was born November 1915 so this doctrine has been part of the mainstream
of my life. I had a father who studied scriptures and shared them with his
family. I was his youngest living child and did much writing for him of
his compilations of references in support of this concept--Michael,
Jehovah, and Eloheim, representing the Father, Son, and Spirit.

For me, it is unthinkable to depart from or forsake so many evidences of
eternal truth which these references contain.

In addition to my father's testimony, I have found many Christian
evidences before Mormonism, of the Eloheim (in Hebrew) being the divine
Spirit that directed the work of Creation. Jehovah is the Redeemer and
Beloved Son Jesus Christ. The Ancient of Days is the Father and God of the
human family!

In an age when leaders are exempt from making mistakes, I believe it is
important to rely on the evidence of truth, more than what a few leaders
approve, because their denouncements do not give intelligent answers to
anyone's positive questions. As members of the Church we are required to
sit and listen, and respond with undoubting and unquestioning trust in
whoever is chosen to lead us. With no voice and no choice, is this being
true to one's self? I do not believe it is!

Rhoda Thurston Hyde Park, Utah

Dialogue, Vol.15, No.4, p.6




Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Mormon News
Date: 30 Oct 1998 23:04:52 -0700

Thursday, October 29, 1998

Tragic tale of torture

By PETER SMITH, CALGARY SUN

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah -- An Alberta woman could face the death penalty in
Utah in connection with the brutal sex assault and torture of her
three-year-old daughter.

Rebecca Bluff, originally from Mountain View near the Alberta-Montana
border, was bound and beaten to death in her Salt Lake City home last
week, investigators say.

The little girl's mother, 26-year-old Ferosa Bluff, has been charged with
child abuse homicide in a case even veteran cops are calling the worst
they've ever worked on.

"This is just beyond comprehension," said Det. Richard Ninow of the Salt
Lake County Sheriff Department's juvenile crime unit.

"The little girl was tortured. She was badly beaten -- I mean severely,
severely beaten," he said.

The girl's two-year-old sister, Sarah, was found with bruises on her body,
but is in good physical condition and has been placed in state protective
custody.

Rebecca died Oct. 21 at Primary Children's Medical Center in Salt Lake
City after an adult in her home called 911 claiming she'd fallen down the
stairs.

But it quickly became clear to investigators Rebecca's injuries were the
result of a brutal beating and sex assault.

An autopsy report ruled she died from massive internal bleeding caused by
"multiple blunt force trauma caused by non-accidental trauma."

"She would have suffered for several days," said a shaken Peggy Faulkner,
deputy with the sheriff's office.

The child's body indicated injuries to her buttocks, vaginal area, legs
and back, including evidence of sexual assault. State medical examiner Dr.
Maureen Fricke concluded injuries to Rebecca's buttocks and feet were
consistent with torture.

Evidence seized this week at the home Ferosa Bluff shared with Andrew
Fedorowicz, 45, and Susannah Fedorowicz, 44, painted a horrifying picture
of bondage and torture.

Police discovered pornographic material depicting sexual bondage and
restraints, along with ropes, whips and other sexual devices that state
medical examiners say could have produced the type of injuries found on
the girl's body.

An addendum to the police search warrant revealed items found inside the
residence included computer-generated bondage photos, home-made videotapes
depicting adults involved in sexual acts and a magazine titled Naughty
Neighbors -- Young Girls Special.

Because of the evidence, prosecutors are working to have the charges
upgraded to aggravated homicide, a capital offence that carries a maximum
penalty of death.

Andrew and Susannah Fedorowicz are also being held on murder charges and
could also face the death penalty.

After Rebecca's death, Andrew Fedorowicz told deputies he had spanked the
child repeatedly in the previous two weeks in an attempt to discipline the
girl.

Rebecca "tried to kill her two-year-old sister ... and (he) had to spank
her for this," he says in the affidavit.

He also told police that after Rebecca fell down the stairs, he tried to
revive her by placing her in a bathtub.

At that point, he said he noticed blood coming from the child's vaginal
area, the affidavit states.

Resident Cali Murray, 16, occasionally babysat for the family. "Rebecca
was the sweetest girl," said Murray.

"She was so funny; she loved to play. She was just really, really sweet --
really pretty, too."

Ferosa's estranged husband Todd Bluff still lives in the Mountain View
area.

Police said yesterday he was in Salt Lake City trying to gain custody of
his surviving daughter.

A custody hearing is scheduled for Nov. 4.

Previous story: Residents urge eye for an eye

-------------------------

[I saw this on an other list I am on, and you know I agree with the
comments, he puts them rather strongly, but to get people's attention, you
have got to do more than mumble.

Here it is:  ]

-------------

[You know it just makes me sick to read this.]

 The Arizona Republic (PHX)

 Chandler Community
 PARENTS PROUD OF WORTHY SON
 ART THOMASON, Republic Columnist
 3868 Characters
10/20/98
 (Copyright 1998 Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.)
   His heart bleeds.
   Dale Borden struggles for the right words.
   Words that elude him.

   Instead, we hear cold utterances from an agonizing father.
Callous words from a man who loves his son. Insensitive words that
pierce the toughest of our hides.

   Words that compel us to search for a deeper meaning.

   "I knew when he said them that there were people who were going to
take him wrong," Borden's wife, Myrna, tells me Monday.

   Myrna and Dale's son, Bradley, lay in a hospital bed 6,000 miles
from home, his upper torso perforated by a drunk's knife.

   The wrenching anguish of waiting -- unable to be at his bedside in
an eastern Russian village, unable to hold his hand or kiss his
forehead and tell him how much they love him -- is no different for
the Bordens than it is for any other parents.

   But now, the indelicate nature of public comments opens new wounds
-- injury that this family does not deserve.

   "You see," Dale told reporters, "we'd rather have him come home in
a pine box than do something unworthy."

[That is such a sick and unbelievable statement, It is as if they don't
believe in repentance!!!  It is better to DIE make a mistake!]


   Dale Borden, no doubt, was using an expression that he had heard
many times, an exaggeration to underscore a point. An excess better
stated, perhaps, from the pulpit than on a lawn before reporters.


[NO from the Pulpit it gets the trappings of authority, but from the front
lawn, it sounds like a whacko, which he is.]


   Unworthy is a condition that Mormon missionaries work hard to
avoid. It is the antithesis of the missionary standard. It is sin,
it is violating the sanctity of mission work, breaking church rules.

[How did missionary work somehow become more sacred then life it's self,
the daily work of a marriage, family and making a living to stay alive and
well?]

   Ultimately, it can lead to excommunication.

   In the eyes of his parents and church elders, 20-year-old Bradley
Borden has long been worthy of the ministry he prepared for.

   His missionary indoctrination began at home and in the Dana Ranch
Ward, Mesa Kimball Stake, when he was old enough to appreciate the
meaning of living his life for Christ. Like every active Mormon, he
was consumed by the critical importance of God's ministry.

   There was always training through example. There were parents and
older siblings who conducted church missions.

   There were four years of early-morning seminary classes before the
start of public high school classes. Then there were two months of
intensive training at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah,
before the assignment to Russia.

   There are the rules that many of us perceive as isolating the
Bradley Bordens from the mainstream of a society.

   No socializing with the opposite sex, no movies. No personal or
telephone contact with Mom and Dad or other family members except on
Mother's Day and Christmas.

[As a young 19 year old boy, I accepted such rules as necessary, as a
grown adult, I find them without rhyme or reason.  If there is a divine
principal that contact with one's loved ones diminishes the quality of
one's efforts, then that principle should hold true at times other than a
mission!  Should I not call and talk to my Daughter at USU for another 4
years until she is done with School, except for 3 holidays a year?


This rule is such utter bullshit!  If a missionary is so home sick that
talking to his parents makes the son so home sick that he can't stand it
any longer, then maybe he had better go home and grow up first.  But to
have such controlling rules that smacks of a bad cult, hardly seems
Christian.

If sons talking to their parents causes them to lose the spirit to the
extent that they no longer feel like doing missionary work, what kind of
external social pressure is keeping them in the mission field in the first
place?  How did these people ever become worthy to serve a mission, by
living around such spiritually devoid parents in  the first place?  Was it
Early morning seminary that gave them their moral foundation?

All I can say is when my children go on missions if they need to talk to
their Dad, no stupid is going to stop them!]


   Bradley didn't break any rules of the church or Russian law. For
this, his family is elated.

[Geeesh, they seem more concerned that he kept mission rules, than if he
is alive?   Knowing how stupid some mission rules are, that would not make
me feel much loved by my family.  Unconditional love?  No, love
conditional on me living sometimes very arbitrary and illogical mission
rules!]

   Had he violated the tenets of his ministry, Myrna and Dale would
have been heartbroken.

[Shit would somebody please slap there people!]

   But they do not place their son on a sacrificial altar. They are
relieved beyond belief that he is alive.

[Boy this contradict their previous statements, doesn't it.]

   "In our our own heart, the thought he would break a mission rule
and be sent home is hard for us to think about," she said. "But
that's not to say that we would ever prefer him to be killed.

[Apparently the mother didn't hear what the father said.  What kind of
parents would prefer to have their children DEAD?  Yet being sent home is
a same that death would almost be preferable!  EEEK!]

   "We would do anything for him. We are very proud of our son,
proud that he took two years out of his life to do something very
important to him and to us, to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.

   "We are very proud of him and proud of what he did insofar as this
attack on him. We would do anything for him. If there was anything
we could do for him now, we would do it."

[How about cutting the poor guy some slack, he is going to feel extreme
pressure to live every possible rule to the nth degree, least people don't
think that he should have died instead of his companion.]

   It seems like you're doing as much as you can, Mrs. Borden. And
I'm sure that Bradley is comforted by it.

[Of course you couldn't call him and tell him such, like normal people
would, but you can't  because that would be breaking the asinine rules
that came down, supposedly, from the very top!

This father is the one that the day after he was informed of the attempt
on his son's life said "we are excited for him to get back to doing
missionary work".

Hey this guy was stabbed.  He could have been killed, also, but was not.
His companion WAS kill.  Hey give him a week or slack to recover from the
trauma, having his companion killed in front of him.  The success of
Mormonism is NOT hinging on whether this young kid gets in a solid 70
hours of missionary work in each week of this month!

What is hinging in the balance is mental stability of this young man's
entire life and what other people's superstitions, that he may be saddled
with for the rest of his life.

A cult that required unconditional and illogical conformity to the most
minute of rules and regulations, is an unsafe cult unworthy of thinking
human beings!

If these people represent the feelings of most Mormons, and considering
my own lack luster mission experience, should I feel I am just barely
worth of living?  Or should I be hyper dedicated to make up for the fact
that my mission was NOT the best two years of my life?  I think not.


I will just try to be a good person, self motivated, because it seems like
the moral thing to do and be a good father to my children and not burden
them with cult like expectations of conformity to silly little rules made
up my very small minded men.  And make sure my children know I love them
before they have real life experiences and that I love them just as much
after those experiences! ]




-