Adam-God Theory

[Tobin]

Well golly gee whiz, let me see now. I have been a member of the Church for 58 years and I have been hearing the term Adam God theory from the beginning.

Why should I care?

I currently participate on several forums and have never until now, heard it referred to as having to deal with becoming a God, which is quite another topic that is commonly taught in the Church and was indeed taught by Joseph Smith before it was taught by Brigham Young. It is one of the basic tenants of the Church. Adam/God has always referred to the misquoted and corrected statement found in the Journal of Discourses that says in referring to Adam: "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."

You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father. You are simply dancing around the issue, though I've quoted it several times to you.

Now if you wish to change the rules and say that the teaching that we can become Gods is what you wish to call the Adam God theory, then O K. I believe that it was Lorenzo Snow who said "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Nobody hides this teaching, as I said it is one of our basic tenants. Just please let me know which topic we are actually discussing.

I haven't changed any rules and been consistent about what the Adam/God theory is. You are the only one that keeps dodging the issue by either completely misrepresenting what I said or what the Adam/God theory is. And you certainly haven't addressed what Brigham taught in John Dehlin:6 275, 276.

[gfchase]

Well golly gee whiz, let me see now. I have been a member of the Church for 58 years and I have been hearing the term Adam God theory from the beginning.

Why should I care?

I currently participate on several forums and have never until now, heard it referred to as having to deal with becoming a God, which is quite another topic that is commonly taught in the Church and was indeed taught by Joseph Smith before it was taught by Brigham Young. It is one of the basic tenants of the Church. Adam/God has always referred to the misquoted and corrected statement found in the Journal of Discourses that says in referring to Adam: "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."

You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father. You are simply dancing around the issue, though I've quoted it several times to you.

Now if you wish to change the rules and say that the teaching that we can become Gods is what you wish to call the Adam God theory, then O K. I believe that it was Lorenzo Snow who said "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Nobody hides this teaching, as I said it is one of our basic tenants. Just please let me know which topic we are actually discussing.

I haven't changed any rules and been consistent about what the Adam/God theory is. You are the only one that keeps dodging the issue by either completely misrepresenting what I said or what the Adam/God theory is. And you certainly haven't addressed what Brigham taught in John Dehlin:6 275, 276.

Show me anything in the following that says that Adam is God the Father. This is everything on the subject from pages 274, 275 and 276. You said above "You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father." Please point out SPECIFICALLY where it says that Adam is God the Father.

"Perhaps in the case before us, as in others, we might say that men become children. We are children in the first place, then become men; and in the second place men become children in their understanding. As to the correctness of the exalted views that brother Phelps has of myself, I leave it to the congregation to decide for themselves; but to place me on a par with the personages he has named, who have overcome and entered into the presence of God, or even to compare me with Joseph Smith, our martyred Prophet, is too much; though I expect, if I am faithful, I shall be as great as they are now, and so can every other faithful man. But am I now to be compared with these exalted characters? Not at all,—not even with Joseph; and he is at present inferior to others brother Phelps has named. But I expect, if I am faithful with yourselves, that I shall see the time with yourselves that we shall know how to prepare to organize an earth like this—know how to people that earth, how to redeem it, how to sanctify it, and how to glorify it, with those who live upon it who hearken to our counsels.

The Father and the Son have attained to this point already; I am on the way, and so are you, and every faithful servant of God.

One of the greatest queries on the minds of the Saints is to understand the nature, the principle of the foundation of our existence. To say nothing about what has been, if you will follow out that which is before you, you can learn all about it. I have a notion to tell you, though I have not time to say much about it now. I will, however, just tell you the simple story relating to the exaltation of man in the celestial kingdom of God. We will take Joseph for instance: he is faithful to his calling—has filled his mission to this earth, and sealed his testimony with his blood; he has done the work his Father gave him to do, and will soon come to the resurrection. His spirit is waiting for the resurrection of the body, which will soon be. But has he the power to resurrect that body? He has not. Who has this power? Those that have already passed through the resurrection—who have been resurrected in their time and season by some person else, and have been appointed to that authority just as you Elders have with regard to your authority to baptise.

You have not the power to baptise yourselves, neither have you power to resurrect yourselves; and you could not legally baptise a second person for the remission of sins until some person first baptised you and ordained you to this authority. So with those that hold the keys of the resurrection to resurrect the Saints. Joseph will come up in his turn, receive his body again, and continue his mission in the eternal worlds until he carries it out to perfection, with all the rest of the faithful, to be made perfect with those who have lived before, and those who shall live after; and when the work is finished, and it is offered to the Father, then they will be crowned and receive keys and powers by which they will be capable of organizing worlds. What will they organize first? Were I to tell you, I should certainly spoil all the baby resurrection that Elder Hyde and the others ever preached, as sure as the world.

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 continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

This is a key for you. The faithful will become Gods, even the sons of God; but this does not overthrow the idea that we have a father. Adam is my father; (this I will explain to you at some future time;) but it does not prove that he is not my father, if I become a God: it does not prove that I have not a father.

I am on the way to become one of those characters, and am nobody in the world but Brigham Young. I never have professed to be brother Joseph, but brother Brigham, trying to do good to this people. I am no better, not any more important than another man who is trying to do good. If I am, I don't know it. If I improve upon what the Lord has given me, and continue to improve, I shall become like those who have gone before me; I shall be exalted in the celestial kingdom, and be filled to overflowing with all the power I can wield; and all the keys of knowledge I can manage will be committed unto me. What do we want more? I shall be just like every other man—have all that I can, in my capacity, comprehend and manage.

I am on my way to this great exaltation. I expect to attain unto it. I am in the hands of the Lord, and never trouble myself about my salvation, or what the Lord will do with me hereafter. It is for me to do the will of God to-day, and, when to-morrow comes, to inquire what is his will concerning me; then do the will of my Father in the work he has appointed me to do, and that is enough for me. I am serving a God who will give me all I merit, when I come to receive my reward. This is what I have always thought; and if I still think so, it is enough for me."

Jerry

[Tobin]

Show me anything in the following that says that Adam is God the Father. This is everything on the subject from pages 274, 275 and 276. You said above "You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father." Please point out SPECIFICALLY where it says that Adam is God the Father.

You are moving the goalposts yet again. I said that Brigham Young indicates that "Adam is my [his] father" in reference to God the Father. He states we are sons of God, identifies who the father is, then goes on and discusses the father or "my Father" further on in the same context as being God.

This is a key for you. The faithful will become Gods, even the sons of God; but this does not overthrow the idea that we have a father. Adam is my father; (this I will explain to you at some future time;) but it does not prove that he is not my father, if I become a God: it does not prove that I have not a father.

He is teaching the Adam/God theory right here.

I am on the way to become one of those characters, and am nobody in the world but Brigham Young. I never have professed to be brother Joseph, but brother Brigham, trying to do good to this people. I am no better, not any more important than another man who is trying to do good. If I am, I don't know it. If I improve upon what the Lord has given me, and continue to improve, I shall become like those who have gone before me; I shall be exalted in the celestial kingdom, and be filled to overflowing with all the power I can wield; and all the keys of knowledge I can manage will be committed unto me. What do we want more? I shall be just like every other man—have all that I can, in my capacity, comprehend and manage.

I am on my way to this great exaltation. I expect to attain unto it. I am in the hands of the Lord, and never trouble myself about my salvation, or what the Lord will do with me hereafter. It is for me to do the will of God to-day, and, when to-morrow comes, to inquire what is his will concerning me; then do the will of my Father in the work he has appointed me to do, and that is enough for me. I am serving a God who will give me all I merit, when I come to receive my reward. This is what I have always thought; and if I still think so, it is enough for me.

Who is he serving? my Father (who is also God) Who is his father? Adam. It is here plain as day.

[gfchase]

Show me anything in the following that says that Adam is God the Father. This is everything on the subject from pages 274, 275 and 276. You said above "You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father." Please point out SPECIFICALLY where it says that Adam is God the Father.

You are moving the goalposts yet again. I said that Brigham Young indicates that "Adam is my [his] father" in reference to God the Father. He states we are sons of God, identifies who the father is, then goes on and discusses the father or "my Father" further on in the same context as being God.

This is a key for you. The faithful will become Gods, even the sons of God; but this does not overthrow the idea that we have a father. Adam is my father; (this I will explain to you at some future time;) but it does not prove that he is not my father, if I become a God: it does not prove that I have not a father.

He is teaching the Adam/God theory right here.

I am on the way to become one of those characters, and am nobody in the world but Brigham Young. I never have professed to be brother Joseph, but brother Brigham, trying to do good to this people. I am no better, not any more important than another man who is trying to do good. If I am, I don't know it. If I improve upon what the Lord has given me, and continue to improve, I shall become like those who have gone before me; I shall be exalted in the celestial kingdom, and be filled to overflowing with all the power I can wield; and all the keys of knowledge I can manage will be committed unto me. What do we want more? I shall be just like every other man—have all that I can, in my capacity, comprehend and manage.

I am on my way to this great exaltation. I expect to attain unto it. I am in the hands of the Lord, and never trouble myself about my salvation, or what the Lord will do with me hereafter. It is for me to do the will of God to-day, and, when to-morrow comes, to inquire what is his will concerning me; then do the will of my Father in the work he has appointed me to do, and that is enough for me. I am serving a God who will give me all I merit, when I come to receive my reward. This is what I have always thought; and if I still think so, it is enough for me.

Who is he serving? my Father (who is also God) Who is his father? Adam. It is here plain as day.

You are injecting something that is not said. You said in the post at the top of this page that he SPECIFICALLY taught that Adam is our God. It simply is not there and you accuse me of moving the goal posts, go figure! If you wish to INTERPRET Brigham's remarks that way, you have the right to do so.

Jerry

[Tobin]

You are injecting something that is not said. You said in the post at the top of this page that he SPECIFICALLY taught that Adam is our God. It simply is not there and you accuse me of moving the goal posts, go figure! If you wish to INTERPRET Brigham's remarks that way, you have the right to do so.

Actually I said,

You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father. You are simply dancing around the issue, though I've quoted it several times to you.

Which I just demonstrated yet again in the quote from the John Dehlin:6 275,276.

[CameronMO]

Jerry,

Before you resurrected this thread two days ago, did you read the entire thread? Did you start at page 1? Did you read the links provided in this thread? Just wondering.

[gfchase]

You are injecting something that is not said. You said in the post at the top of this page that he SPECIFICALLY taught that Adam is our God. It simply is not there and you accuse me of moving the goal posts, go figure! If you wish to INTERPRET Brigham's remarks that way, you have the right to do so.

Actually I said,

You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father. You are simply dancing around the issue, though I've quoted it several times to you.

Which I just demonstrated yet again in the quote from the John Dehlin:6 275,276.

I quoted the entire section from John Dehlin 6 275-276 that deals with this topic and yet you still insist that he specifically taught that Adam is God the Father and you say that I am dancing around the issue. What more can I do than to give you the entire quote which I have done. It is you that is doing the tap dance. And again if you wish to talk about the issue of whether we can become Gods, fine, I am here to post the reality of what was and is taught and it is up to you to accept or reject. I fully recognized when I came to this forum that there are those who fall into the category of looking for a reason to disbelieve and they will always find a way to do so regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

To answer the question from cameronMO: I read probably half of the posts and checked some of the links and found nothing to change my mind.

Jerry

[Tobin]

I quoted the entire section from John Dehlin 6 275-276 that deals with this topic and yet you still insist that he specifically taught that Adam is God the Father and you say that I am dancing around the issue.

Yep, and I underlined and bolded EXACTLY where he said it too.

What more can I do than to give you the entire quote which I have done.

I didn't ask you to quote it since I already have several times as well as underlined and bolded the relevant parts.

It is you that is doing the tap dance.

Not at all. I'm more than happy to let the quotations and underlined material speak for itself.

And again if you wish to talk about the issue of whether we can become Gods, fine,

Another misrepresentation of what I said and cited.

I am here to post the reality of what was and is taught and it is up to you to accept or reject.

No you aren't. You are here to push the agenda that the Adam/God theory was a clerical error and ignore everything that shows you are clearly mistaken.

I fully recognized when I came to this forum that there are those who fall into the category of looking for a reason to disbelieve and they will always find a way to do so regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

Disbelieve what? I fully acknowledge that Brigham Young taught the Adam/God theory. I really don't have a problem with that. You are the only one in denial here.

[grindael]

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.)

"Careless scribes made mistakes"? LOL. Read my comments above on how Young corrected EVERY SERMON and how George Watt made sure of it. "Careless scribes" also made the mistake of submitting an article to the Deseret News in 1873 that Young APPROVED, and which stood uncorrected by him until he died in 1877?

The "careless scribes" theory is just fantasy. Adam who is he? by Mark Peterson is full of omissions and outright mistakes, some of which he corrected in the 2nd Edition after being called out on them (like the Charles C. Rich statement). You are grasping at straws here. Read all of the OTHER sermons in which Young taught that Adam was God. And Young being obscure in some sermons means nothing.

They were not above denying polygamy when it suited them. What makes you think that Young would not do so for Adam God to selective audiences? You did not read the entire thread where all of this is shown to be a fantasy by Ben Rich (that it was the fault of scribes). How could Ben E. Rich correct something that his father told him was wrong, when his father wasn't even there? And that was the correction by Peterson who originally wrote that Charles E. Rich WAS there for that sermon when he was not. He then conveniently comes up with a statement by his son, who wasn't there either.

[grindael]

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 continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

This clearly says that Adam would provide tabernacles for HIS "spiritual children". That would be the children that he and Eve had in the pre-existence. Those who don't want to admit the truth, deny what is right in front of them.

[gfchase]

I quoted the entire section from John Dehlin 6 275-276 that deals with this topic and yet you still insist that he specifically taught that Adam is God the Father and you say that I am dancing around the issue.

Yep, and I underlined and bolded EXACTLY where he said it too.

What more can I do than to give you the entire quote which I have done.

I didn't ask you to quote it since I already have several times as well as underlined and bolded the relevant parts.

It is you that is doing the tap dance.

Not at all. I'm more than happy to let the quotations and underlined material speak for itself.

And again if you wish to talk about the issue of whether we can become Gods, fine,

Another misrepresentation of what I said and cited.

I am here to post the reality of what was and is taught and it is up to you to accept or reject.

No you aren't. You are here to push the agenda that the Adam/God theory was a clerical error and ignore everything that shows you are clearly mistaken.

I fully recognized when I came to this forum that there are those who fall into the category of looking for a reason to disbelieve and they will always find a way to do so regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

Disbelieve what? I fully acknowledge that Brigham Young taught the Adam/God theory. I really don't have a problem with that. You are the only one in denial here.

What you underlined had nothing to do with Adam being God except perhaps in your mind and others who want so desperately to disbeliever. He was talking about God the Father not Adam. It saddens me that you seem so desperate to prove from no evidence other than what I have posted of the original sermon. All the rest is vain imaginings. In spite of the fact that the original corrected material is in the hands of the church you still choose to disbelieve. Oh well.

[gfchase]

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 continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

This clearly says that Adam would provide tabernacles for HIS "spiritual children". That would be the children that he and Eve had in the pre-existence. Those who don't want to admit the truth, deny what is right in front of them.

I see that you do not read much better than your friend. It does not say that the Adam who resided on this earth will the one to provide tabernacles for his spirit children but rather AN Adam or in other words another first man and woman. Adam and Eve was used figuratively. However every man and woman who lives to be worthy to become Gods including Adam and Eve will eventually bear spirit children who will be sent to an earth to also gain bodies just as has been done here. There will be a first man and a first woman on each world who would be AN Adam and AN Eve.

Jerry

[Tobin]

What you underlined had nothing to do with Adam being God except perhaps in your mind and others who want so desperately to disbeliever. He was talking about God the Father not Adam. It saddens me that you seem so desperate to prove from no evidence other than what I have posted of the original sermon. All the rest is vain imaginings. In spite of the fact that the original corrected material is in the hands of the church you still choose to disbelieve. Oh well.

As I've already said, you seem intent on misrepresenting either my position or the material itself. You clearly have no interest in honestly responding to the quotations. Unless and until you have something factual or relevant to say about the matter, I consider your denials just further evidence of the absurdity of your position. I think you have sufficiently demonstrated your agenda here and that you are purposely ignoring what is actually stated in the John Dehlin 6: 275, 276.

[gfchase]

What you underlined had nothing to do with Adam being God except perhaps in your mind and others who want so desperately to disbeliever. He was talking about God the Father not Adam. It saddens me that you seem so desperate to prove from no evidence other than what I have posted of the original sermon. All the rest is vain imaginings. In spite of the fact that the original corrected material is in the hands of the church you still choose to disbelieve. Oh well.

As I've already said, you seem intent on misrepresenting either my position or the material itself. You clearly have no interest in honestly responding to the quotations. Unless and until you have something factual or relevant to say about the matter, I consider your denials just further evidence of the absurdity of your position. I think you have sufficiently demonstrated your agenda here and that you are purposely ignoring what is actually stated in the John Dehlin 6: 275, 276.

I know exactly what it says and would suggest to you that it is indeed YOU that is misrepresenting what is said there. It was I who posted the entire quote and pointed out that what you claimed simply was not there in spite of your continued insistence. The quote has absolutely nothing to do with Adam/God theory but rather addresses one of the basic teaching of the Church that ALL men have the ability to become Gods IF they are willing to do ALL that Christ asks of us to the best of our ability. God is our father and we are literally his children. He wants for us what He has himself, however it does not come without effort. This life is the test that we all must pass through to see who will and who will not DO what is necessary to become a joint heir with Christ and inherit ALL that our Father has to offer which is to become like HIM. This is what Brigham was addressing and not whether Adam is our God which he is not.

Jerry

[Tobin]

I know exactly what it says and would suggest to you that it is indeed YOU that is misrepresenting what is said there. It was I who posted the entire quote and pointed out that what you claimed simply was not there in spite of your continued insistence. The quote has absolutely nothing to do with Adam/God theory but rather addresses one of the basic teaching of the Church that ALL men have the ability to become Gods IF they are willing to do ALL that Christ asks of us to the best of our ability. God is our father and we are literally his children. He wants for us what He has himself, however it does not come without effort. This life is the test that we all must pass through to see who will and who will not DO what is necessary to become a joint heir with Christ and inherit ALL that our Father has to offer which is to become like HIM. This is what Brigham was addressing and not whether Adam is our God which he is not.

Again, I am uninterested in your misrepresentations. I can read the text for myself and know you aren't telling the truth (as I've already pointed out repeatedly). So you aren't going to convince me of anything when you do that and I seriously doubt you'll convince anyone else here either. You are welcome to have your distorted views that have no bearing on the facts. However, no one is going to take you seriously.

[Bazooka]

Just to clarify, everybody posting on this thread is wrong in how they are reading the meaning of the same set of words?
Is that right?

[gfchase]

I know exactly what it says and would suggest to you that it is indeed YOU that is misrepresenting what is said there. It was I who posted the entire quote and pointed out that what you claimed simply was not there in spite of your continued insistence. The quote has absolutely nothing to do with Adam/God theory but rather addresses one of the basic teaching of the Church that ALL men have the ability to become Gods IF they are willing to do ALL that Christ asks of us to the best of our ability. God is our father and we are literally his children. He wants for us what He has himself, however it does not come without effort. This life is the test that we all must pass through to see who will and who will not DO what is necessary to become a joint heir with Christ and inherit ALL that our Father has to offer which is to become like HIM. This is what Brigham was addressing and not whether Adam is our God which he is not.

Again, I am uninterested in your misrepresentations. I can read the text for myself and know you aren't telling the truth (as I've already pointed out repeatedly). So you aren't going to convince me of anything when you do that and I seriously doubt you'll convince anyone else here either. You are welcome to have your distorted views that have no bearing on the facts. However, no one is going to take you seriously.

You have called me a Liar and if I am a liar then so is Jesus Christ, for it is His doctrine that I boldly proclaim. There will always be those who, until they stand before the Savior themselves, will declare that his doctrine is something other than what it is. There are billions who accept the Bible as the word of God, yet there are more than 40,000 different Christian denominations, all declaring something different about what they find there. Add to that the uncounted individual interpretations and there are probably millions of different concepts about what the Bible says and all of that does not change the reality that there is only one truth. It is up to each of us to find and follow that one true doctrine of Christ and hold as fast to it as we can. So go ahead and call me a liar. It bothers me not, for I know on what road I travel in spite of the rantings and ravings of gnashing of teeth of those who would assault the truth to assuage their guilt. Simply because a group of like minded individuals band together does not make their cause just. They simply seek solace in each others company. If I never convince anyone here and I suspect that I will not, my written testimony will stand as a witness at the last day.

Jerry

[Tobin]

You have called me a Liar

Oh, I am most definitely calling you out for that.

and if I am a liar then so is Jesus Christ, for it is His doctrine that I boldly proclaim.

No you aren't Jesus Christ. You may think you are, but you seriously aren't. And I imagine Jesus Christ would be an advocate for the truth. That is something you clearly are not.

There will always be those who, until they stand before the Savior themselves, will declare that his doctrine is something other than what it is. There are billions who accept the Bible as the word of God, yet there are more than 40,000 different Christian denominations, all declaring something different about what they find there. Add to that the uncounted individual interpretations and there are probably millions of different concepts about what the Bible says and all of that does not change the reality that there is only one truth. It is up to each of us to find and follow that one true doctrine of Christ and hold as fast to it as we can. So go ahead and call me a liar. It bothers me not, for I know on what road I travel in spite of the rantings and ravings of gnashing of teeth of those who would assault the truth to assuage their guilt. Simply because a group of like minded individuals band together does not make their cause just. They simply seek solace in each others company. If I never convince anyone here and I suspect that I will not, my written testimony will stand as a witness at the last day.

Blah, blah, blah. You don't have the truth on your side despite your tirade above. Anyone can pick up the John Dehlin:6 275, 276 and see you are ignoring what it says and distorting it. That means you aren't telling the truth about it no matter how many fits you have about it. So get over yourself.

[gfchase]

You have called me a Liar

Oh, I am most definitely calling you out for that.

and if I am a liar then so is Jesus Christ, for it is His doctrine that I boldly proclaim.

No you aren't Jesus Christ. You may think you are, but you seriously aren't. And I imagine Jesus Christ would be an advocate for the truth. That is something you clearly are not.

There will always be those who, until they stand before the Savior themselves, will declare that his doctrine is something other than what it is. There are billions who accept the Bible as the word of God, yet there are more than 40,000 different Christian denominations, all declaring something different about what they find there. Add to that the uncounted individual interpretations and there are probably millions of different concepts about what the Bible says and all of that does not change the reality that there is only one truth. It is up to each of us to find and follow that one true doctrine of Christ and hold as fast to it as we can. So go ahead and call me a liar. It bothers me not, for I know on what road I travel in spite of the rantings and ravings of gnashing of teeth of those who would assault the truth to assuage their guilt. Simply because a group of like minded individuals band together does not make their cause just. They simply seek solace in each others company. If I never convince anyone here and I suspect that I will not, my written testimony will stand as a witness at the last day.

Blah, blah, blah. You don't have the truth on your side despite your tirade above. Anyone can pick up the John Dehlin:6 275, 276 and see you are ignoring what it says and distorting it. That means you aren't telling the truth about it no matter how many fits you have about it. So get over yourself.

I know how to read and my comprehension level is extremely high. You have chosen to believe something that is simply not said by Brigham and that is your right. You have the right to believe anything you wish. You seem to be getting angry. Typically when someone gets angry when trying to defend their position, they are most usually quite wrong and do not know what else to do. If you wish to cease the conversation, all you need do is quit posting.

Jerry

[Tobin]

I know how to read and my comprehension level is extremely high. You have chosen to believe something that is simply not said by Brigham and that is your right. You have the right to believe anything you wish. You seem to be getting angry. Typically when someone gets angry when trying to defend their position, they are most usually quite wrong and do not know what else to do. If you wish to cease the conversation, all you need do is quit posting.

Again, I'm not talking about your ability to read or comprehend things. I'm talking about your willingness to distort the facts and misrepresent things to fit your agenda. And I assure you that I am not angry. I just think your behavior is childish and absurd. It is not something I take seriously and your arguments are not credible as a result.

[Fence Sitter]

Jerry,

Have you read Conflict In the Quorum: Orson Pratt, Brigham Young & Joseph Smith?

Bergera deals extensively with the subject and provides many many references to BY's doctrine of Adam-God.