ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/gdm/archive/v02.n012

Internet Message Format | 1998-10-29 | 57KB

From: [e-mail] (gdm-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: gdm-digest V2 #12
Reply-To: gdm-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


gdm-digest         Thursday, October 29 1998         Volume 02 : Number 012




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

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

[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

- -

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

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

[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

- -

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

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

[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

- -

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

End of gdm-digest V2 #12
************************