click on image to enlarge
What you would get if you fused Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, and a modern Mormon together?
You’re looking at it.
Discussion Questions
1) Did Brigham Young teach “Adam is God”?
2) Did he teach it as “doctrine”?
3) If a so-called “prophet” teaches something as “doctrine” that a later “prophet” calls “false doctrine”, can either of them be trusted? (reference Spencer Kimball)
4) If a so-called “prophet” can be so utterly wrong about the nature of God, does that say anything about the people who would choose to follow them?
NOTE: Read the comments to this cartoon to see a most revealing aspect of Mormon culture.
Now the only question left to ask is: Why didn’t any of them consult those six-foot-tall people dressed like Quakers living on the Moon about all this?
Here is one of many documents which preserve this embarrassing fact of Mormon history, which was the source of the quote in the cartoon:
click on image to enlarge
Another great picture! Mormonism’s belief system must be understood in order to be effectively combated. That Adam is our god is a pretty ludicrous statement.
Thanks, JW!
And if readers think carefully about what Mormon “super”-apologist McConkie is saying in the picture (a direct quote, by the way) and then reference the Brigham Young quote (also a direct quote) in its full context, a very embarrassing and telling reality must be admitted.
Have you seen some of the linguistic gymnastics that modern Mormon apologists are performing to combat this well-known, uh, “doctrine” of theirs? The young, modern Mormon signifies what I usually encounter when quoting their so-called “prophets”.
Maybe sometime the cornerstone at the temple in Kirtland, Ohio will be popped open to reveal the true origins of The Book of Mormon.
Keep up the battle!
Actually, the quote from Brigham young is not a direct quote, but it does get the drift.
However, most of what Brigham Young stated concerning this idea was never meant to be doctrine, only his own thoughts and ideas. The rest is very difficult to decipher its real meaning, and so most real scholars simply ignore it as we have no clue what he actually meant.
Personally I have no problem with all these references.
You must be a Mormon. Welcome and thanks for taking the time to reply. I sincerely appreciate your feedback.
A few of questions, if I may:
1) Did you check out my reference before stating that it’s “not a direct quote”?
2) If no one really knows what Brigham Young meant, how can you say that my (direct) quote “gets the drift”?
3) If what Brigham Young stated “was never meant to be doctrine,” why did he himself call it “doctrine” more than once?
4) If what Brigham Young stated was “very difficult to decipher” and most “real scholars simply ignore it as we have no clue what he actually meant,” then why would it cause such a huge controversy among Mormons at the time and even meet with strong opposition from Mormon leaders like Orson Pratt?
5) Does Bruce McConkie count as a “real scholar” to Mormons?
6) Did you check out the context of the Bruce McConkie quote?
You say you “have no problem with all these references.” Please carefully consider their implications.
Your responses would be appreciated and you’re welcome here.
Now, as to the direct quote, I was having a little fun. Your quote may be direct from the reference you gave, but that reference did not quote President Young directly.
The actual quote, as given in the transcription of the talk in which it appears (Journal of Discources volume one) is “…He is our father and our god…” Now, the report in the deseret news naturally summed this up as Brigham Young taught that “Adam is our father and god.” So, naturally, in using this report you did not give a direct quote from Brgham Young.
As to your questions.
1. I had no need, as I have read the transcript of the actual conference talk in which it was given, and thus new that it was not direct.
2. Because the wording of your quote contained the same meaning as the actual words of President Young. He used a pronoun because he had previously established who he was talking about, and he repeated the word ‘our’ for emphasis, but it all means the same.
3. I never said that all of what he stated was not meant as doctrine, only that most was not meant in this way. Several times his statements concerning this idea have been accompanied with ackowledgements that he was giving speculation and opinion. As such, it is not doctrine.
4. Because at the time they had the benefit of having President Young with them to explain things further in settings and conversations that were not recorded. We do not have this benefit, but must rely on the written records that exist.
As to Orson Pratt, there was some opposition, but the fact that Brigham Young never believed that opposition grounds for any kind of disciplinary actions seems to support the idea that what he was saying was not meant to be doctrine.
5. Yes, Bruce McConkie is a real scholar. His statement is his opinion, and notice that he never says that President Young was completely wrong; only that some statements were wrong. My point was not that some scholars will not have this opinion, but that most prefer to leave the subject alone as it is truly impossible to tell what his true meaning is. I do not think that Brother McConkie was claiming to understand his true meaning, but was stating the opinion that given our current understanding we must conclude that President Young was in error in some of his statements, which is an opinion I would agree with.
6. I have read the quote before, as well as the entire document. It has been a while, and so I will refresh my memory when I get the chance.
As to considering their implications, I have, and find them most comforting.
Hey! Wow. Thanks for coming back. I thought I was victim of another post-and-run. So, I appreciate you coming back — and I’ve got more questions for you.
1) What standard are you using to judge that the quotation in the Deseret News (18730618) is not a direct quote, but the statement in the Journal of Discourses is? Did Brigham Young write the text in the JOD himself or was it a transcript?
2) Hmm.
3) Can you give me one reference in which Brigham Young states that Adam is God was an opinion?
That’s why I listed the Deseret News article because in it, Brigham Young states: “How much unbelief exists in the minds of Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me — namely that Adam is our father and God.” If you know of a better method to get a direct quote apart from a séance, I’d like to know about it.
4) So no one can know what he meant from what he reportedly said in writing, but conversations which are not on record? How would you know what he taught in a conversation if there’s no record of it and you weren’t there?
5) Bruce McConkie wrote the widely read book Mormon Doctrine. Surely he understood the doctrines of Mormon “prophets.” The quote from McConkie is specifically about “Adam = God”. Read the letter to again. Soon.
Let me add: I really don’t like the semantics, a very heavy part of Mormon apologetics (for example: the “at” and “in” controversy of Alma 7:10). What Brigham Young meant was simple to understand, but the problems it presents to Mormonism are huge, which is why it has always been a point of controversy and always will be. That’s why I wanted to bring it to the attention of people that visit here, hoping that a conversation like this would spring up.
To say that “it is truly impossible to tell what his true meaning is” is to do an injustice to language. What he said was clear. That’s my theory. To test my wild “theory,” I read the relevant section to my Wife, whose third language (!) is English. Afterwards I asked, “Who is he saying their ‘God’ is?”
She said, “Adam. Do you think my English is so bad?” (NOTE: She was inferring that I thought her English was so bad that she wouldn’t know the obvious answer to such a simple question.)
The implications are:
a) A Mormon “prophet” can be wrong and teach lies as truth.
b) A person who teaches untrue things about God is not a real prophet.
c) Brigham Young was not a real prophet.
You really find those comforting? Or were you thinking of some other implications?
By the way, “comforting” and “truthful” are not the same thing. Would you care if something you believed made you feel cozy inside if it were false?
And I won’t journey down the “this-is-doctrine-this-is-opinion” trail with you. I apologize. Let your answer to this question be sufficient to show what a fruitless journey it would be:Can you provide for us an official statement from Mormon leaders about what constitutes official doctrine?
I eagerly await your response!
[...] reference the image above for the source of my Brigham Young quote in the Yet Another Mormon Monstrosity [...]
I do apologize on the quote. It seems I was confusing two different quotes (the one I gave being the first one he made, and the one you gave being a later one).
3. As to it being it opinion, right now I cannot find the actual reference. However, I can say that it was given as an address in October of 1852. I will find the reference (as I know I have it at home, just not on me) and give it later. This is the only time I know of where he spoke exclusively on this topic, and was not just making random comments in support of other topics. And it is in this that he constantly states that this idea is his opinion, or his musings on the mysteries of God.
4. As to understanding, any true historian will tell you that all understanding is, in large part, guess work. Because we did not live at that time and are thus not intimately familiar with the people and circumstances we can never truly and fully understand their meaning and intentions.
In this case it becomes even harder for the simple fact that much of what Brigham Young himself said is a contradiction of this doctrine, as are the words of every leader of the church before and after.
“NOTE : “The reported statements [of this theory] conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham
Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latterday
Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don’t; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. … It is not a matter
of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don’t know what “it” is. … Even experts of his thought are left to
wonder whether he was misquoted, whether he meant to say one thing and actually said another, whether he
was somehow joking with or testing the Saints, or whether some vital element that would make sense out of the
reports has been omitted. … Whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church
for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church. … It contradicts the LDS
scriptures; it contradicts the teachings of Joseph Smith; it contradicts other statements by Brigham Young made
during the same period of time; it contradicts the teachings of all the prophets since Brigham Young; and it
contradicts the sacred ordinances of the LDS temples, with which Brigham Young was intimately familiar. ad
PUBLICATION : Robinson, Stephen. Are Mormons Christians? pp. 19-20
5. Brother McConkie understood the doctrine, but not necessarily ever sentence ever spoken.
As to semantics, by ignoring them you are basically saying that all you are interested in your own perception and don’t care to know others or the intention of the author. It is in semantics that language is understood. It is not knowing the semantics that leads to misunderstandings. Words are chosen for specific reasons, and if we ignore those words in favor of our perceptions we are simply saying that the intention of the speaker or writer doesn’t matter to us.
I will always speak on semantics, for true understanding can come in no other way.
As to Brigham Young’s meaning, if you take a single quote, or even a half a dozen quotes, all you can get is his meaning for those quotes, not his meaning as regards the doctrine. I will admit that the meaning of this particular quote is clear, but that does not make the entire doctrine clear.
For instance, Brigham Young, while he calls Adam our God, never refers to him as Elohim, but always as Michael. Now, we know from the words of many prophets, including Brigham Young, that Elohim is the name of the Father who is the Head of the Gods. So, by making this distinction (semantics) we see that Brigham Young never meant that Adam was the God we worship, or the God of the Bible.
With this realization we must then ask in what way Adam is our God if he is not God in the same sense as Elohim is.
These are the things that have puzzled scholars, along with many others. These kinds of complex, interwoven ideas make the actual teaching of Brigham Young concerning this topic unknown to the modern student.
Now, as to the implications, I see only this. Brigham Young may have made a few mistakes. As these were never presented as doctrine (shown in the quote above) it does not pose any problems with his divine calling as a prophet. What it does show is that even the greatest among us has faults, which is a very comforting things when I consider my many faults.
Thanks for your lengthy response. I sincerely appreciate the different perspective you offer.
If I could add that my comment about semantics was with the idea that words can’t be understood in their most basic meaning. It happens when dealing with Mormons a lot. A word doesn’t usually mean what we usually take it to mean. Words like “god,” for example. As we can see, it was as if by Brigham Young saying “Adam is God,” the three words had novel/non-standard meanings, as you seem to indicate and believe; that is, “god” doesn’t mean “God.” And part of my case was that the fact that 1) Mormons at that time strongly opposed it; 2) Latter presidents rejected the teaching as false doctrine. Taken together, I think they give us the true meaning of the sentence.
And actually this point would highlight the differences between Christianity and Mormonism; that is, What is “God” to a Mormon? If I scan the literature, “Father God” or “God” (in the ultimate sense) to a Mormon is a glorified human being who progressed to become “god” and had not always been one. (That is completely against the teachings of the Old and New Testaments.) In fact, in the 1830 edition of The Book of Mormon there are several places where Mary is said to be “the mother of God,” a very telling phrase that Joseph Smith changed in the 1837 editions. (If you don’t have an 1830 edition, I’d suggest you get one so that you can see all the telling warts.) Additionally, doesn’t Mormonism teaching that faithful Mormons become “gods” of their own planets? And, see, I think that is playing with words, since only God is God. Maybe Brigham Young should’ve found another word.
Besides, where are any of those things (Adam is [a] [g]od; Elohim is “God”, etc.) taught in the 4 standard works that Mormons term “Scripture”?
And I’m going to press you to answer this question:
Can you provide for us an official statement from Mormon leaders about what constitutes official doctrine?
Several times Mormons have used this excuse and told me that such-and-such isn’t an official doctrine. Yet it seems to me to be more words games — substituting “opinion” or “theory” for “doctrine” — and more deception.
And if you could, explain how you distinguish what is an opinion and what is a doctrine taught be Mormon “prophet.”
Thanks again for your replies!
Let me speak on doctrine first.
I would say there are three levels of prophetic teachings. There is official doctrine; doctrine; and opinion.
Official Doctrine: This is that doctrine which is taught by the leaders, and then is submitted to the general membership for acceptance as doctrine. The standard works have all been so sustained as doctrine. It is also well known that originally the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89) was not official doctrine, but was so sustained in the 1850′s by the general membership of the church. Anything that has not been so submitted and sustained is not official doctrine.
Doctrine: This is the teachings of the prophet that are the words of God but are not submit to the general membership for the sustaining vote. These, though true, are not binding on the membership of the church. An example is Caffeine. While many prophets have spoken against it it has never been submitted and thus is not official and not binding. It is still true, and all who follow the prophets teachings will be blessed, but it is not required.
Opinion: These are the things that prophets say as their own thoughts, not having any direct revelation or guidance from God. They are speaking the musings of their own mind. This is not binding, and agreeing or disagreeing with it will bring no blessing.
How to tell the difference: In modern times it is not difficult. The leaders no longer give opinions in official addresses as they once did, so any official talk of declaration can be taken as doctrine. However, a leader who publishes a book, and does so without being directly requested to do so by the First Presidency, can be understood to be giving his opinion (like the book Mormon Doctrine).
However, it is not as easy to distinguish this in the words of past leaders. They do usually leave clues for those seeking them.
For instance, Brigham Young is quoted as saying there was life on the sun. But, when you read the actual words he asks the question “Do you think there is life on the moon. I rather think there is. It was not created in vain.” What was he teaching, or what was the doctrine, and what is the opinion. The doctrine is in the last sentence, that the sun (and indeed all things) were created for a purpose. His opinion is that the purpose was to sustain life, but that was not the doctrine.
Similar things can be seen in may of these odd statements that are frequently used as proof of doctrine. We can see such statements as “I think” or “I believe” or any one of a number of phrases that indicate personal belief and opinion.
These are nice opinions. However, I didn’t see anything official in there.
Let me press you again, since it was you who said “most of what Brigham Young stated concerning this idea was never meant to be doctrine, only his own thoughts and ideas.”
1) Can you show me an official comment or writing by a Mormon authority regarding what constitutes “official doctrine?” (I hope you can see the fruitlessness of the search.)
If we examine the evidence, I have more right to maintain that what he was promoting — that Adam is [g]od — was doctrine. Why? Two points. He didn’t use the words “I think” or “I believe” when teaching the Adam-God Doctrine. Most importantly, he said it was doctrine himself.
2) Why would it be that when a supposed Mormon “prophet” calls something “doctrine” you would argue that it was “only his own thoughts and ideas?”
Now, as to God.
We don’t change the meaning. Not exactly. What we do is recognize that in capitalizing the word God it becomes a proper noun, or a name (title) of deity. God refers to the one we worship, the one who stands as the supreme being over this Earth and all things that pertain to it and his children.
However, god, not being capitalized, is not a proper name and is thus not in reference to this supreme being. It is instead a noun used to denote a type of being. Just as the Greeks used the word god to refer to any one of the many members of their pantheon, we use the term god to refer to anyone who lives and shares the same existence with God.
So, there is no real changing of meaning.
As to being taught in the scriptures, it is not. It is in the doctrine as taught by the prophets. However, the teaching that God the Father is Elohim is taken from the use of this word in the Hebrew Old Testament. The word literally means gods, and it is used in the Hebrew to denote the supreme being who commanded the creation.
As to Adam being our God, I think this was effectively taught by Joseph Smith in 1839, which teaching is reprinted in the Priesthood / Relief Society Manuel “Teaching of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.” In chapter 8, under the section titled “The priesthood is everlasting and has been held by prophets in every dispensation,” we read the following:
“The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years [see Joseph Smith Translation, Hebrews 7:3]. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam’s authority.
“…He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. … The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.”
In other words, he is our father and (in a sense) our god, for it is before him that all will first stand, and it is by his authority that things are done on this Earth, and he will continue to hold that authority in Heaven.
Now, do not misunderstand. This does not mean he has authority over Christ or the Father. Adam will deliver all his authority to Christ, except his standing as the head of the family. What does this mean?
Compare it to the authority of the father of the family here on Earth. If President Monson were to visit my house I would still be the presiding authority, and he would submit to me in all decisions. This does not give me the authority to run the church, only to direct my own family.
In the same way Adam, being the father of the human race, acts as the presiding authority of this planet. Christ submits to him when he is here, but Christ still holds the Authority of leadership over all the Father’s children and will rule in heaven, but Adam will direct this planet.
So, Adam is our father and our god, but he is still under the authority of Christ and the Father in the governing of Heaven.
That’s a very candid response. Thanks!
And you see, you yourself are playing with words. Your entire theory regarding what Brigham Young meant is based on a single letter. Yet Brigham Young wrote “God,” not “god.” When you wrote it, you wrote “god.”
And another thing: Adam is dead. How can he then “preside over the spirits of men”?
D&C 26: 2 “And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.
D&C 28: 13 “For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.”
D&C 104: 71-72, 85 “And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order.
And this shall be the voice and common consent of the order—that any man among you say to the treasurer: I have need of this to help me in my stewardship—
And pledge the properties which I have put into your hands, this once, by giving your names by common consent or otherwise, as it shall seem good unto you.”
The law of common consent is a well established principle in the church. The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Bible, and the Pearl of Great Price have been accepted according to this law. So too are all officers in the church. It is by this law that, as it says, all things are done. This would include the establishment of official doctrine.
This is not just my opinion, but the law of the church. Nothing that has not been submitted for the sustaining vote according to this law is binding on the members of the church, for such has not been sent through the appropriate channels.
Now, as to the distinction between doctrine and opinion, I will admit some of my own understanding was put into this, but it is based on this law.
If we sustain a person, by common consent, as the President of this church we are sustaining his word as the word of God to man. It is as simple as that. However, without the sustaining vote on the teaching it is not binding. Thus I refer to it as doctrine, but not official doctrine.
First, it was not Brigham Young that wrote “God” but the recorder.
Second, in all “official documents” or those that have been sustained by the membership, the distinction I have described is always made.
As to playing with words, I really don’t care if you don’t like it. This is how the language works, and I will use it in this way. This is a perfectly valid linguistic analysis of the words and thus is a perfectly valid explanation of their meaning.
whether you like it or not means nothing.
As to Adam
Matthew 22: 32 “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
Just like these great patriarchs, the greatest and first Patriarch Adam is not dead but is living, having received a glorious resurrection.
Besides this, we were all spirits before birth, at which time Adam was chosen to preside as the head of the human race. After his death he still presided as a spirit in the Spirit Paradise while he awaited his resurrection. After that Resurrection he presided as an immortal being.
Death is a very mortal concept, and applies only to mortality.
Do you really think that Brigham Young is going to let something be printed and widely distributed with his name on it if he didn’t agree with it, especially when he himself calls it “doctrine”?
Your apologetic builds on an extremely weak foundation; the claim that what the recorder wrote and what Brigham Young meant were not the same. And the difference is capitalization, yet the word is capitalized in every source. If it were lowercase in at least one, your semantics would be possible. But you’re playing with a letter. That’s disingenuous. And you could continue to explain away this one “problem”, but then you’d need to explain the reaction of the Mormon leaders at that time in light of your explanation. And, you see, it wouldn’t work.
So, you see, the alternative that I’ve suggested makes more sense, now in 3 ways:
1) Brigham Young called the Adam-God Doctrine “doctrine”;
2) The word “God” is capitalized in all references;
3) Your explanation doesn’t account for the strong reaction of Mormon leaders and believers at the time.
And, unlike many doctrines of Mormonism, let me be perfectly clear: You’ve got no evidence to support your interpretation / position.
And, regardless, although I will listen to what you have to say, it would always merely amount to your opinion. Yet since your opinions are not “official doctrine”, neither I nor anybody else is required to accept them as an official or even a good explanation of this embarrassing doctrine that is one of many “devil’s tails” of the so-called prophetic system of Mormonism.
Regarding Matthew 22:32
I think if you quoted Luke 20:38 you’d have found some interesting additional information. It states that Jesus also said, “To Him all are living”. But didn’t you notice that it says “to Him”? It doesn’t say “to everybody”. Just because all are living to Him (God), doesn’t mean that all are living to Joseph Smith. And when a person accepts that “dead” doesn’t mean “dead”, but it means “alive in some other state”, then you set yourself up for massive deception. That’s why Mormons can believe that Joseph Smith actually talked to Peter, James, and all the other people. For what it’s worth, that’s why many Catholics believe in Mary or Marian apparitions. It’s why Far Eastern religions are heavy into visions, trances, and ghosts. Yet the Scriptures — the Old and New Testaments — are very clear that Jesus is the only Human Being who has died and been resurrected to an immortal state at this point in history:
1 Corinthians 15:20 – “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.”
John 3:13 – “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man.”
No human — not Adam, nor Peter, nor Paul, and definitely not Joseph Smith — has inherit immortality. Immortality is a gift from God that the Body of Christ (the Ecclesia) doesn’t have yet:
1 Corinthians 15:53 – “For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.”
Total Mormon doctrine there. Show us where this is taught in the Old and New Testaments.
1) So, when did Mormons “vote” to agree that “voting” was the way to establish official doctrine?
2) If voting / common consent is the way that “official doctrine” is established, then why would Mormons need a prophet or want one? (You seem to indicate that he would have to get a revelation, then everybody vote whether or not to accept it as official doctrine.)
3) When did Mormons “vote” on The Book of Mormon?
4) When did Mormons “vote” on accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet?
5) When did Mormons “vote” that Brigham Young was to be the second president? (Better brush up on your history for that one! Joseph Smith’s murder came as a surprise.)
Besides, here is an “official statement” on what constitutes “scripture” to Mormons:
Thanks!
Yes, I could give explanations for everything you mention concerning Brigham Young and what he said and how it was recorded. In fact there is clear evidence to support that the records were not always accurate and that Brigham Young did not take the time needed to make them so. However, as you state that you are not really interested, I see little point.
As to the reaction of the current leaders, it account for it just fine. There are those even now who react in this same way to the explanation I have given because it brings with it many other ideas that most people are not ready to accept (and I am not going to go into detail). Their reaction, regardless of the true meaning of Brigham Young is perfectly understandable.
As to your alternative, it doesn’t make sense, because it does not account for all the words spoken by Brigham Young, nor how they would relate to other doctrines taught by him as well as others. You only make sense when taking a few quotes and focusing solely on them with no regard to anything else.
And regardless, it only amounts to your opinion, and as your opinion is not doctrine and neither I nor anybody else is required to accept it as an official or even a good explanation of what Brigham Young said.
Continuing on in our discussion, there has most definitely been others who have been resurrected. I know the Corinthian reference, and all it is saying is that he was the first to be resurrected, not that others haven’t been. As to the John quote, which I also know, he had not yet been resurrected, and so at this time the statement was very true. However, he has now been resurrected, and thus the statement is no longer accurate.
Matthew 27: 52-53 “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”
Now, you can make the argument that they were just brought back from the dead. The problem with this is that it says they “appeared” until many, indicating something other than normal interaction. It is also true that there is no other mention of this, and such an event would hardly have gone unnoticed by the people.
No, the only logical explanation is that after Christ had been resurrected as the Firstfruits, others were then resurrected who had been righteous in the past (thus called saints).
Now, as to the spirit world, while I can show it in the Old and New Testament, there would be no point. It is LDS doctrine, which is what we were discussing. Of course he explanation and doctrines of Adam would not agree with your doctrine, but that is not the point. It agrees with the rest of LDS doctrine, which is all that matters.
Final Response
In my final response to you, let this be made know:
You originally accused me of misquoting Brigham Young. Then when I gave you a copy of the document with the direct quote, you said that what he reportedly said was not what he meant. And then you proceded to give your interpretation of what he meant by saying that he meant “god”, not “God”. And to support this, you say that my alternative doesn’t make sense because of other doctines he taught, regardless of what was in print with his name attached to it and the reaction of Mormon followers and leaders at the time.
You have dug a hole and then fallen into it. Let me explain.
In a sense, you are saying that I’m misrepresenting Brigham Young’s teaching by not taking into account his other words. However, you say that the words I have quoted are, in fact and essence, misquotes. This leads me to believe that even if I did take the time to read other writings by Brigham Young that I couldn’t necessarily be sure if what I was reading was actually what he said.
So, here’s the problem you have made for yourself:
1) To understand what Brigham Young taught, you must read all of Brigham Young’s writings (it has to be “all”, as I’m sure you yourself must have, otherwise you might find something else in his writings that contradicts even your interpretation of what he wrote).
2) Even after you read all that he wrote, you can’t be sure that it was transcribed right.
3) No one can really know what Brigham Young wrote.
Is being a Mormon and basking a purple haze of misguided teachers and teachings one of the delights of being part of “The True Church”?
Furthermore, “truth”, from your description, is established by vote within the Mormon organization. The origin of such a system strikes me as strange because if we point to the establishment of Mormonism in 1830 and to that first group of people as those that voted for what was the core of Mormonism (Joseph Smith’s prophetic mantle; the Book of Mormon; etc.), then it was non-Mormons who were deciding what was and wasn’t “official doctrine” for Mormons (?). Those about to get baptised accepted them before they were baptised and considered “official” Mormons, no?
My point about people accepting Brigham Young as being the successor of Joseph Smith was meant to point out the fact that Mormonism splintered into several factions after Joseph Smith’s murder, with multiple people claiming that “God” told them they were the next in line. Currently, there are over 100 different sects claiming to be the “restored Church”. The one you belong to is but another, bigger one. How do you know the one you belong to is right when they all are claiming the same status?
Not only does a modern Mormon have their hands full with that, once you do regard something as “official scripture” or “official doctrine”, you then have to establish which edition of The Book of Mormon and The D & C is “official”. After all, I have and read the 1830 edition of The Book of Mormon. There are many, many changes to it, changes in the format, the text itself, and the grammar. There are nearly 70,000 changes within its pages! And given the “official” history of its creation, those errors should not exist.
In all honesty, I want no part of your organization.
And, sorry, I can’t spend anymore time responding to you on this subject (see above). But I do appreciate your interaction. It has been very revealing and educational.
As to your second post:
1: When they voted to accept the Doctrine and Covenants as binding scripture. This was done when the revelations were collected and made ready for printing in the 1830′s. Please read up on your history.
2. To make a doctrine binding on the saints, yes. Something that is binding is something that is required for baptism and later for admission into the Temple. Notice that for both of these the person must sustain the leaders as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Also notice that they are asked to sustain the standard works as scripture and binding.
The point of having a Prophet is not only to establish doctrine, but to guide the church. We are not now in need of new doctrine, but we will always be in need of guidance. Such things as Family Home Evening and Food Storage are not binding (meaning that not following them will not keep you from membership or the temple) but are still divinely inspired council that will benefit all those who follow them.
3. They voted on the Book of Mormon the day the Church was organized: April 6, 1830.
4. They voted on Joseph Smith on the day the Church was organized: April 6, 1830.
Note: Every Member votes to accept these (and number 1) when they are interviewed for baptism.
5. While the actual date escapes me they did make such a vote. As the story goes, after the others who sought the position had spoken to the membership, Brigham Young stood to speak, and the people saw in his face and heard in his voice Joseph Smith. This event ended with the sustaining vote for Brigham Young, as President of the Twelve Apostles, to lead the saints. It was not until about twelve years later, in the Salt Lake Valley, that he was sustained as the new President of the Church.
D&C 68: 4
We are discussing what makes official, or binding doctrine, not what constitutes scripture. The two things are not the same. Official doctrine can come only through the President, as sustained by the First Presidency, the Counsel of the Twelve, the Quorums of Seventy, and the General Membership.
However, anyone who has been called to the Priesthood that speaks by the influence of the Holy Ghost is speaking scripture. Thus, the words of the Bishop spoken to ward members is scripture, as are the words of missionaries to nonmembers, as long as it is inspired by the Spirit. However, it is not official and binding doctrine for the church.