consiglieri wrote:God has never been Consiglieri.
Trust me on this.
And your logical deduction for this is what exactly?...
consiglieri wrote:God has never been Consiglieri.
Trust me on this.
Uncle Ed wrote:consiglieri wrote:God has never been Consiglieri.
Trust me on this.
And your logical deduction for this is what exactly?...
Uncle Ed wrote:consiglieri wrote:
Trust me on this.
And your logical deduction for this is what exactly?...
Just personal experience, my friend.
Uncle Ed wrote:consiglieri wrote:
Just personal experience, my friend.
I am always interested in others' personal experiences. Such a conclusion as you make here is inconceivable to me. (I do know what that word means.) Never at any time have I been able to wrap my mind around existence and explain it with anything other than "God". So how could you possibly be anything else but "God manifesting"?...
caaron wrote:Eternal Marriage Student Manual, (2003), 167–83
The nature of the offspring is determined by the nature of the substance that flows in the veins of the being. ...
gfchase wrote:He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.
Is this what Brigham REALLY said? The reality is that what he taught on the Godhead on many other occasions defy this statement, not to mention this very talk. So wherein lies the problem? The answer is really quite simple. Sometimes careless scribes made mistakes and it just so happens that this was one of those times. The fact is that the error was found and corrected.
Mark E Peterson says in ADAM: WHO IS HE - "Elder Charles C. Rich was not present on the day when President Young gave an address that was wrongly reported as saying Adam was our Father in heaven. (See John Dehlin 1:51.) The sermon was delivered April 9, 1852, and Elder Rich returned April 21. In a copy of the Journal of Discourses Elder Ben E. Rich, son of Elder Charles C. Rich, referred to the misquotation as it appears in the Journal of Discourses, and in his own hand corrected the statement to read as follows: "Jesus our Elder Brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character who talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven." In this same statement Ben E. Rich wrote "As corrected above is what Prest. Young said, as testified to me by my father, C. C. Rich." (This signed statement is in the hands of the Church Historical Department.)
CameronMO wrote:gfchase wrote:He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.
Is this what Brigham REALLY said? The reality is that what he taught on the Godhead on many other occasions defy this statement, not to mention this very talk. So wherein lies the problem? The answer is really quite simple. Sometimes careless scribes made mistakes and it just so happens that this was one of those times. The fact is that the error was found and corrected.
Mark E Peterson says in ADAM: WHO IS HE - "Elder Charles C. Rich was not present on the day when President Young gave an address that was wrongly reported as saying Adam was our Father in heaven. (See John Dehlin 1:51.) The sermon was delivered April 9, 1852, and Elder Rich returned April 21. In a copy of the Journal of Discourses Elder Ben E. Rich, son of Elder Charles C. Rich, referred to the misquotation as it appears in the Journal of Discourses, and in his own hand corrected the statement to read as follows: "Jesus our Elder Brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character who talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven." In this same statement Ben E. Rich wrote "As corrected above is what Prest. Young said, as testified to me by my father, C. C. Rich." (This signed statement is in the hands of the Church Historical Department.)
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I must admit, when I came across this teaching a few years ago, I was disappointed. I'd grown up in the church, and this alleged statement attributed to President Young struck me as odd. So thank you for showing me that anything attributed to Pres. Young recorded by Rich was an error.
But what about the recordings of Samuel H. Rogers, Hosea Stout, Wilford Woodruff, and George D. Watt at that same meeting? Or other statements by Pres. Young regarding Adam-God in August 1852, October 1853, February 1854, October 1854, March 1855, February 1857, and October 1857, just to name a few? Did Mark E. Peterson say anything about these other instances of Pres. Young talking about Adam-God doctrine?
Nursery
Joined: 2013.12.03 08:26:03
Posts: 2
"The scribes did it" is an outdated evasion. Please look for another excuse...gfchase wrote: So wherein lies the problem? The answer is really quite simple. Sometimes careless scribes made mistakes and it just so happens that this was one of those times.
Is he the same Mark E. Petersen ?gfchase wrote:Mark E Peterson says ...
gfchase wrote:Can you be more explicit on where your information can be found. I found nothing in the Journal of Discourses for your august 1852 date and the only sermon for the October 1853 that I found addressed gathering the poor, the perpetual emigration fund, and emigration but not one word about Adam/God. I looked no further. I really do not have time to search without proper information. Remember that just because you find something on the internet does not mean that it is correct. I have found that what you usually get is quite inaccurate.
CameronMO wrote:gfchase wrote:Can you be more explicit on where your information can be found. I found nothing in the Journal of Discourses for your august 1852 date and the only sermon for the October 1853 that I found addressed gathering the poor, the perpetual emigration fund, and emigration but not one word about Adam/God. I looked no further. I really do not have time to search without proper information. Remember that just because you find something on the internet does not mean that it is correct. I have found that what you usually get is quite inaccurate.
Thanks for your warning on the internet. I often forget that not everything is accurate, and that evil people might have secret agendas for spreading misinformation. To answer your question, though:
Rogers' recording can be found in his journal in the BYU Harold B. Lee Library.
Stout's recording can be found in his journal at the Utah State Historical Society.
Woodruff's recording can be found in the LDS Archives.
The August 1852 recording can be found at John Dehlin 6:275 http://contentdm.lib.BYU.edu/cdm/compou ... 9602/rec/6
The October 1853 recording can be found at John Dehlin 2:6.
The February 1854 and October 1854 recordings can be found in the Brigham Young Collection in the LDS Archives, as well as the October 12, 1854 issue of Deseret News.
The March 1855 recordings can be found in the Samuel W. Richards journal in the Lee Library and the LDS Millenial Star, Vol. 17, No. 13.
The February 1857 recording can be found at John Dehlin 4:215-222.
The October 1857 recording can be found at John Dehlin 5:331-32.
I'll repeat what was said on the first page of this thread back in 2007- Everything you want to know about the Adam-God Doctrine can be found here, starting on page 14: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/fullbro ... /cpd/20104
gfchase wrote:I checked your 1852 and 1853 references and neither discuss the Adam/God theory. Tell me have you actually checked these references for your self? I will check the rest if you insist that they teach this theory, but so far you are not batting too well. What I find is grasping at straws.
After men have got their exaltations and their crowns - have become Gods, even the sons of God - are made kings of Kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation and they will go into the garden and ...
Tobin wrote:gfchase wrote:I checked your 1852 and 1853 references and neither discuss the Adam/God theory. Tell me have you actually checked these references for your self? I will check the rest if you insist that they teach this theory, but so far you are not batting too well. What I find is grasping at straws.
You must have done a rather lousy job checking John Dehlin:6 275After men have got their exaltations and their crowns - have become Gods, even the sons of God - are made kings of Kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation and they will go into the garden and ...
He goes on to identify that Adam is his father and that he, Brigham Young, will go on and attain all that the Father (presumably Adam) and Son have attained (p. 276).
gfchase wrote:This does not teach that Adam is the only God with whom we have to do which is the basis of the Adam/God theory. This teaches that we all have the ability to become gods which is quite another doctrine, so am I the one doing a lousy job of research or is it just your grasping at straws as I said before? Adam is the father of the human race and so is your father as well.
Tobin wrote:gfchase wrote:This does not teach that Adam is the only God with whom we have to do which is the basis of the Adam/God theory. This teaches that we all have the ability to become gods which is quite another doctrine, so am I the one doing a lousy job of research or is it just your grasping at straws as I said before? Adam is the father of the human race and so is your father as well.
Uh no. Maybe in your world that is what the Adam/God theory means, but in actuality the idea is that Brigham Young identifies Adam as God the Father. Clearly this seems to be what he is doing in John Dehlin:6 275-276
Well, you are either deliberately moving the goalposts or very confused. In either event, I don't really care. The Adam/God theory is not about Brigham Young teaching that "Adan[m] is the only God with whom we have to do" as you claim. In the John Dehlin:6 275-276, Brigham Young says "Adam is my father". He then states that he will go on and attain what the Father (Adam) and Son have attained. Since the subject he is talking about is becoming Gods, one would assume he is talking about becoming a God. That means that Brigham Young is teaching that Adam is God the Father, which is what the Adam/God theory is.gfchase wrote:Perhaps you should go back and read my first post above, Brigham never taught such a thing, it was a scribal error which was corrected a few days later in the margins. I quoted the exact statements as they appear in the John Dehlin and the correction. Brigham NEVER taught that Adan is the only God with whom we have to do!!!!!Again page 275 does NOT teach Adam is God, it teaches that we may beco,me Gods if we are faithful and page 276 is directed to those leaving on missions not to cling to their families, rather to pray for them and leave them in the hands of the Lord. I suspect that you have never actually read this for your self. Those who seek for a reason will always find one regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?
gfchase wrote: Those who seek for a reason not to believe will always find one regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?
Tobin wrote:Well, you are either deliberately moving the goalposts or very confused. In either event, I don't really care. The Adam/God theory is not about Brigham Young teaching that "Adan[m] is the only God with whom we have to do" as you claim. In the John Dehlin:6 275-276, Brigham Young says "Adam is my father". He then states that he will go on and attain what the Father (Adam) and Son have attained. Since the subject he is talking about is becoming Gods, one would assume he is talking about becoming a God. That means that Brigham Young is teaching that Adam is God the Father, which is what the Adam/God theory is.gfchase wrote:Perhaps you should go back and read my first post above, Brigham never taught such a thing, it was a scribal error which was corrected a few days later in the margins. I quoted the exact statements as they appear in the John Dehlin and the correction. Brigham NEVER taught that Adan is the only God with whom we have to do!!!!!Again page 275 does NOT teach Adam is God, it teaches that we may beco,me Gods if we are faithful and page 276 is directed to those leaving on missions not to cling to their families, rather to pray for them and leave them in the hands of the Lord. I suspect that you have never actually read this for your self. Those who seek for a reason will always find one regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?
The next false claim you've made is that I didn't read the material. I actually did and that is why I cited it and know what it says.
Now, you can go off and pretend that the Adam/God theory was never taught by Brigham Young all you want. You can subscribe to the incorrect view that it was a clerical error and somehow all these references to it are mistaken. I find it hilarious that you need to resort to such tactics to explain away something he clearly taught though. You seem desperate to prove that Brigham Young as somehow always perfect in everything he taught, was apparently God, and couldn't have been mistaken and taught false stuff. And I find the fact you believe nonsense like that over what is clearly true rather humorous.