A Timely Discovery: The Book of Zelph
As archeological and DNA evidence appear to disprove the Book of Mormon, the Book of Zelph has come forward as a second witness to The Book of Mormon. The Book of Zelph fills in the scientific gaps of the Book of Mormon and explains the DNA controversy.
"His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains."
- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 2:79-80; June 3, 1834
"We learn that Zelph was slain during one of these battles during the great last struggle between the Nephites and Lamanites and was buried near the Illinois River."
- Joseph Fielding Smith
"While on our way we felt anxious to know who the person was who had been killed by that arrow. It was made known to Joseph that he had been an officer who fell in battle, in the last destruction among the Lamanites, and his name was Zelph.
- Heber C. Kimball
Even though most mainstream Mormons don't know Joseph Smith revealed the existance of the white Lamanite named Zelph, it is talked about among scholars trying to figure out where "Hill Cumorah" was in New York or in Central America. Since it can't be proven that the epic battles occured anywhere in New York, where Joseph Smith claimed they were held, some current scholars within the church are trying to explain this away with the "Two Cumorahs Theory". Check out this link if you don't believe me:
BYU Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship
My thoughts are:
There sure does seem to be a lot of effort spent trying to justify the teachings of Joseph Smith, and to prop up the Book of Mormon as an accurate historical account. More often than not, the Mormons point to us, the unbelievers, and say," Prove it ISN'T true!" It's not up to us to go out of our way to show the world that what they say isn't true. They have the burden of proof here, it's up to them to demonstrate that what they teach can be backed up historically and scientifically.
If they say American Indians are decendant of Jews, DNA would not prove otherwise. If Joseph Smith said a great epic war was held in New York, there would be no need to come up with a "Two Cumorahs Theory". If there was a such thing as reformed Egyptian, then the Book of Abraham texts used by Joseph Smith wouldn't have been proven to be common funerary texts. And if Joseph Smith was a true prophet, he wouldn't have pretended to translate from the Kinderhook Plates, which most Mormons have no knowledge about.
Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In other words, "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." And I think that the Mormons have added way too many explanations for their prophet's teachings (both past and present). We should be wary of too many possible explanations being presented for the purpose of maintaining a belief, and simply accept the simplest solution: Joseph Smith developed the Book of Mormon out of many different resources, turned it into a religious movement to save his family from poverty, continued to add to the teachings and bring about "revelations" to keep the movement going, created a temple ceremony based on Masonic rituals he had learned while being inducted, and continued to act as a prophet and revelator because that is what the followers expected him to do. He had developed his fantasy to the point of being unable to retract it, and had no choice but to maintain the status quo once it had expanded into a full fledged religion. I suspect he had no intention of starting an entirely new religion, he probably just wanted to sell the book and make some money to pay off back debts. But, like wildfire, it grew until he was hailed no less than a king. He boasted of how he had done more than anyone, save Jesus himself, to bring the gospel to the masses. And his closest allies kept the religion alive after his murder. Brigham Young had done more to distort the orginal church than any other prophet, yet Mormons still say he was "called of God". And today's prophet puts as much distance as he can from Brigham's teachings, polygamy, Blood Atonement, and the couplet: "As God is, Man may become," a major tenet of the religion.
From Time Magazine:
On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."
This is not a prophet. He denies a cornerstone of the beliefs. He is not inspired.
Brigham Young was not a prophet. He inserted his own beliefs and made them scripture.
Joseph Smith was not a prophet. He created the Book of Mormon out of the desire to make money. He was not "chosen" to translate any kind of book or document. He was a fraud.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Joseph Smith's Changing First Vision Accounts
From a page on the Institute for Religious Research Website:
The Importance of Joseph Smith's Vision
Joseph Smith's First Vision Story is one of the foundational truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Its importance has been described as second only to belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Mormon Apostle Hugh B. Brown declared:
The First Vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith constitutes the groundwork of the Church which was later organized. If this First Vision was but a figment of Joseph Smith's imagination, then the Mormon Church is what its detractors declare it to be - a wicked and deliberate imposture (The Abundant Life, pp. 310-311).
If there is even a remote chance that this pivotal point in the Mormon story is a fabrication, what Latter-day Saint would not want any and all of the pertinent facts? This article provides historical evidence that puts Joseph Smith's First Vision story in a new light. Many Latter-day Saints today remain unaware of significant historical details which have been intentionally omitted or suppressed, including the following facts:
According to the historical evidence Joseph Smith could not have been stirred by an 1820 revival to ask which church was true, since there was no revival in 1820 anywhere near Manchester, New York, where he was living. A revival as described by Joseph Smith did occur there beginning in the spring of 1824. However, this then seriously disrupts Joseph's whole story, because there is not enough time between the First vision and the 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon for all the events described in the First Vision story.
There are other earlier accounts of the First Vision, including one handwritten by Joseph Smith himself, which make no mention of an appearance of the Father and the Son. Instead, these earlier accounts refer to an angel, a spirit, many angels, or the Son. The story in its present form with the Father and the Son, did not appear until 1838, many years after Joseph claimed to have had the vision.
The details now known about Joseph s early life contradict his claim that he was persecuted in 1820 for telling the story of the First Vision. As a young man he participated in Methodist meetings, and later joined a Methodist church class. No persecution is recorded.
No 1820 Revival
Joseph Smith's neighborhood experienced no revival in 1820 such as he described, in which great multitudes joined the Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches. According to early sources, including church conference reports, newspapers, church periodicals, presbytery records and published interviews, nothing occurred in 1820-21 that fits Joseph's description. There were no significant gains in church membership in the Palmyra-Manchester, New York area,3 during 1820-21 such as accompany great revivals. For example, in 1820, the Baptist Church in Palmyra only received 8 people through profession of faith and baptism, the Presbyterian church added 14 members, while the Methodist circuit lost 6 members, dropping from 677 in 1819 to 671 in 1820 and down to 622 in 1821 (see Geneva area Presbyterian Church Records, Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia, PA; Records for the First Baptist Church in Palmyra, American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, NY; Minutes of the [Methodist] annual Conference, Ontario Circuit, 1818-1821, pp. 312, 330, 346, 366).
In his 1838 account, Joseph Smith stated that his mother, sister and two brothers were led to join the local Presbyterian Church as a result of that 1820 revival. However, Joseph's mother, Lucy, tells us that the revival which led her to join the church took place after the death of her son, Alvin. Alvin died on November 19, 1823, and following that painful loss Lucy Smith reports that,
...about this time there was a great revival in religion and the whole neighborhood was very much aroused to the subject and we among the rest, flocked to the meeting house to see if there was a word of comfort for us that might relieve our over-charged feelings (First draft of Lucy Smith's History, p. 55, LDS Church Archives).
Lucy adds that although her husband would only attend the first meetings, he had no objection to her or the children going or becoming church members . There is plenty of additional evidence that the revival Lucy Smith refers to did occur beginning in the spring of 1824. It was reported in at least a dozen newspapers and religious periodicals (see for example, a letter of George Lane, dated January 25, 1825, in Methodist Magazine 8, [April 1825]:159 and a note in a Palmyra newspaper, the Wayne Sentinel 1 [September 15, 1824]:3). Church records from that time period show outstanding increases in membership due to the reception of new converts. The Baptist Church received 94, the Presbyterian 99, while the Methodist work grew by 208. No such revival bringing in great multitudes occurred in 1820 in the Palmyra-Manchester area as Joseph claimed. It is clear from this evidence that the revival Joseph Smith described did not occur in 1820, but in 1824. When Joseph Smith wrote the 1838 version of his history, he arbitrarily moved that revival back four years to 1820 and made it part of a First Vision story that neither his mother nor other close associates had heard of in those early days. (For further details see, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1969, pp. 59-100.)
Does a discrepancy of four years cause a major problem for Joseph's story? It certainly does. Joseph described a 10-year sequence of events that begins with the First Vision and ends with the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830. If this sequence did not start until 1824, there are only six years in which to fit the ten year sequence Joseph claims occurred before the Book of Mormon was printed.
In the story as it appears in Mormon scripture, Joseph says that in 1823, three years after the 1820 First Vision, he was visited by the angel Moroni. Moroni tells Joseph about the gold plates but says he must wait four years before obtaining them. In 1827 Joseph gets the gold plates and three years later (1830) publishes the Book of Mormon. However, recall that Joseph linked the First Vision to a great religious excitement in the Manchester-Palmyra area. As documented above, we now know that this revival took place, not in 1820, but in 1824. This means that the angel Moroni's initial visit three years after the First Vision would have to be dated to 1827. When we add the four additional years Joseph said he had to wait to get the plates, he would not even have had them until 1831. But by this time the Book of Mormon was already in print. The 10-year sequence of events which Joseph spells out in his First Vision story simply will not fit into the span of time between 1824 and the 1830 publication date of the Book of Mormon.
How did the story of Mormon origins become so confused? Part of the answer is found in the fact that Joseph Smith himself told the story several different ways.
An Ever-Changing Story
In about 1832, Joseph Smith, began an account of the origin of the Mormon Church (the only one written in his own hand) that is considerably different from the official First Vision story he dictated some six years later. This 1832 account, which has been referred to as Joseph's strange account, was never finished and for many years remained inaccessible to the public. It was published in BYU Studies, Spring 1969, pp. 278ff, and is also included in Dean C. Jessee's The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984, pp. 14ff).
In this version Joseph presented himself as a boy who, between the ages of twelve and fifteen, was a committed and perceptive reader of the Bible. He claimed that it was his study of the Scriptures which led him to understand that all the denominations were wrong. He wrote:
by searching the Scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament (Personal Writings, p. 5).
Six years later, when Joseph set forth his official First Vision account, he changed his story and no longer claimed his personal Bible study led him to the conclusion that all churches were wrong. Instead, he said that the Father and the Son told him that all the churches were wrong and he must join none of them. (Ironically, Mormon historians have documented the fact that Joseph Smith joined a Methodist church class in 1828, which would seem to constitute a direct violation of the claimed divine command "to join none of them." He claimed to be surprised by this announcement, for he added parenthetically, "at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong." Yet, in stating this, Joseph contradicted himself, for a few paragraphs earlier in this same account he recorded: "I often said to myself . . . Who of all these parties are right; or are they all wrong together?" The statement — "it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong" — appears in the original manuscript (see BYU Studies cited previously, p. 290), and in the first (1851) edition of the Pearl of Great Price. This phrase, which contradicts Joseph's earlier statement, was edited out of later editions of LDS scriptures until sometime after 1980, when it was inserted back into English language editions of the PGP. It was also omitted from some foreign language editions, including Spanish and Portuguese, until sometime after 1989 when it was inserted in those as well.
Even without this contradiction the 1838 official account conflicts with the 1832 version. In the 1832 account it is Joseph's Bible reading that stirs him to seek God, while in the 1838 story it is a (non-existent 1820) Palmyra-area revival that motivates him.
In the 1832 version Joseph only mentions the appearance of Christ, while in the 1838 rendition he claims both the Father and the Son appeared. In the 1832 account he already knows all the churches are wrong, while in the 1838 story he says it never occurred to him that all were wrong until the two deities informed him of this fact.
Joseph's mother, likewise, knew nothing of a vision of the Father and the Son in the Sacred Grove. In her unpublished account she traces the origin of Mormonism to a bedroom visit by an angel. Joseph at the time had been pondering which of all the churches were the true one. The angel told him "there is not a true church on Earth, No, not one" (First draft of Lucy Smith's History, p. 46, LDS Church Archives).
Still another version of the First Vision was published in 1834-35 in the periodical, Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate (Vol. 1, pp. 42, 78). This account was written by LDS leader Oliver Cowdery with the help of Joseph Smith. It tells how a revival in 1823 caused 17-year-old Joseph Smith to be stirred up on the subject of religion. According to Cowdery, Joseph desired to know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion (p. 78). He also prayed if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him and a manifestation in some way that his sins were forgiven (Ibid., 78, 79). According to this account, an angel (not a deity) appeared in Joseph's bedroom to tell him his sins were forgiven.
The conflicts produced by this account are numerous. First, the date of the revival is given as 1823, instead of 1820. Second, if Joseph had already had a vision of the Father and the Son in 1820, why did he need to pray in 1823 about whether or not a Supreme being existed? Third, when the revival prompts him to pray, the personage that appears is an angel, not the Father or Son. Fourth, the message of the angel is one of forgiveness of sins, rather than an announcement that all the churches were wrong.
These widely divergent accounts raise serious questions about the authenticity of Joseph Smith's First Vision story. Different people may have varying views of the same event, but when one person tells contradictory stories about the same event, we are justified in questioning both the person and the truthfulness of the story.
Persecution Or Acceptance?
Today's First Vision story not only runs into trouble with the historically verified date of the Palmyra, New York revival and with Joseph's earlier accounts of the event, it also conflicts with what we know about his early years in Palmyra. In his official version Joseph Smith claims he was persecuted by all the churches in his area "because I continued to affirm that I had seen a vision." However, this is contradicted by one of Joseph's associates at the time. Orsamus Turner, an apprentice printer in Palmyra until 1822, was in a juvenile debating club with Joseph Smith. He recalled that Joseph, "after catching a spark of Methodism . . . became a very passable exhorter in evening meetings" (History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase, 1851, p. 214). Thus, instead of being opposed and persecuted as his 1838 account claims, young Joseph was welcomed and allowed to exhort during the Methodist's evening preaching. This point is supported by Brigham Young University historian and LDS bishop, James B. Allen. Allen found virtually nothing to support Joseph's claim that he told the First Vision story immediately after it happened in 1820, and suffered persecution as a result, or even that Joseph was telling the story ten years later:
There is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830s Joseph Smith was telling the story in public. At least if he were telling it, no one seemed to consider it important enough to have recorded it at the time, and no one was criticizing him for it. Not even in his own history did Joseph Smith mention being criticized in this period for telling the story of the First Vision ("The Significance of Joseph Smith's First Vision in Mormon Thought", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p. 30).
Conclusion
From all available lines of evidence, therefore, Joseph's 1838 official rendition of his First Vision story appears to be myth not history:
There was no revival anywhere in the Palmyra-Manchester, New York area in 1820.
The events as told by Joseph Smith will not fit into the time period between the 1824 revival and the 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon.
Joseph was welcomed, not persecuted by the Methodists.
New Light on Joseph Smith's "First Vision"
In his 1832 account Joseph said it was by personal Bible study that he determined all the churches were apostate, while in his 1838 account he said it "never entered into my heart that all were wrong."
In his 1832 version Joseph claimed to see only a vision of Christ and in his 1835 version Joseph told of the visit of an angel, while in the 1838 story the message came from the Father and the Son.
No one knew of today's version of the First Vision until after Joseph dictated it in 1838, and no published source mentions it until 1842 (Ibid., pp. 30ff).
The conflicts and contradictions brought to light by the preceding historical evidence demonstrate that the First Vision story, as presented by the Mormon church today, must be regarded as the invention of Joseph Smith's highly imaginative mind. The historical facts and Joseph's own words discredit it.
If there is even a remote chance that this pivotal point in the Mormon story is a fabrication, what Latter-day Saint would not want any and all of the pertinent facts?
The Importance of Joseph Smith's Vision
Joseph Smith's First Vision Story is one of the foundational truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Its importance has been described as second only to belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Mormon Apostle Hugh B. Brown declared:
The First Vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith constitutes the groundwork of the Church which was later organized. If this First Vision was but a figment of Joseph Smith's imagination, then the Mormon Church is what its detractors declare it to be - a wicked and deliberate imposture (The Abundant Life, pp. 310-311).
If there is even a remote chance that this pivotal point in the Mormon story is a fabrication, what Latter-day Saint would not want any and all of the pertinent facts? This article provides historical evidence that puts Joseph Smith's First Vision story in a new light. Many Latter-day Saints today remain unaware of significant historical details which have been intentionally omitted or suppressed, including the following facts:
According to the historical evidence Joseph Smith could not have been stirred by an 1820 revival to ask which church was true, since there was no revival in 1820 anywhere near Manchester, New York, where he was living. A revival as described by Joseph Smith did occur there beginning in the spring of 1824. However, this then seriously disrupts Joseph's whole story, because there is not enough time between the First vision and the 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon for all the events described in the First Vision story.
There are other earlier accounts of the First Vision, including one handwritten by Joseph Smith himself, which make no mention of an appearance of the Father and the Son. Instead, these earlier accounts refer to an angel, a spirit, many angels, or the Son. The story in its present form with the Father and the Son, did not appear until 1838, many years after Joseph claimed to have had the vision.
The details now known about Joseph s early life contradict his claim that he was persecuted in 1820 for telling the story of the First Vision. As a young man he participated in Methodist meetings, and later joined a Methodist church class. No persecution is recorded.
No 1820 Revival
Joseph Smith's neighborhood experienced no revival in 1820 such as he described, in which great multitudes joined the Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches. According to early sources, including church conference reports, newspapers, church periodicals, presbytery records and published interviews, nothing occurred in 1820-21 that fits Joseph's description. There were no significant gains in church membership in the Palmyra-Manchester, New York area,3 during 1820-21 such as accompany great revivals. For example, in 1820, the Baptist Church in Palmyra only received 8 people through profession of faith and baptism, the Presbyterian church added 14 members, while the Methodist circuit lost 6 members, dropping from 677 in 1819 to 671 in 1820 and down to 622 in 1821 (see Geneva area Presbyterian Church Records, Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia, PA; Records for the First Baptist Church in Palmyra, American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, NY; Minutes of the [Methodist] annual Conference, Ontario Circuit, 1818-1821, pp. 312, 330, 346, 366).
In his 1838 account, Joseph Smith stated that his mother, sister and two brothers were led to join the local Presbyterian Church as a result of that 1820 revival. However, Joseph's mother, Lucy, tells us that the revival which led her to join the church took place after the death of her son, Alvin. Alvin died on November 19, 1823, and following that painful loss Lucy Smith reports that,
...about this time there was a great revival in religion and the whole neighborhood was very much aroused to the subject and we among the rest, flocked to the meeting house to see if there was a word of comfort for us that might relieve our over-charged feelings (First draft of Lucy Smith's History, p. 55, LDS Church Archives).
Lucy adds that although her husband would only attend the first meetings, he had no objection to her or the children going or becoming church members . There is plenty of additional evidence that the revival Lucy Smith refers to did occur beginning in the spring of 1824. It was reported in at least a dozen newspapers and religious periodicals (see for example, a letter of George Lane, dated January 25, 1825, in Methodist Magazine 8, [April 1825]:159 and a note in a Palmyra newspaper, the Wayne Sentinel 1 [September 15, 1824]:3). Church records from that time period show outstanding increases in membership due to the reception of new converts. The Baptist Church received 94, the Presbyterian 99, while the Methodist work grew by 208. No such revival bringing in great multitudes occurred in 1820 in the Palmyra-Manchester area as Joseph claimed. It is clear from this evidence that the revival Joseph Smith described did not occur in 1820, but in 1824. When Joseph Smith wrote the 1838 version of his history, he arbitrarily moved that revival back four years to 1820 and made it part of a First Vision story that neither his mother nor other close associates had heard of in those early days. (For further details see, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1969, pp. 59-100.)
Does a discrepancy of four years cause a major problem for Joseph's story? It certainly does. Joseph described a 10-year sequence of events that begins with the First Vision and ends with the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830. If this sequence did not start until 1824, there are only six years in which to fit the ten year sequence Joseph claims occurred before the Book of Mormon was printed.
In the story as it appears in Mormon scripture, Joseph says that in 1823, three years after the 1820 First Vision, he was visited by the angel Moroni. Moroni tells Joseph about the gold plates but says he must wait four years before obtaining them. In 1827 Joseph gets the gold plates and three years later (1830) publishes the Book of Mormon. However, recall that Joseph linked the First Vision to a great religious excitement in the Manchester-Palmyra area. As documented above, we now know that this revival took place, not in 1820, but in 1824. This means that the angel Moroni's initial visit three years after the First Vision would have to be dated to 1827. When we add the four additional years Joseph said he had to wait to get the plates, he would not even have had them until 1831. But by this time the Book of Mormon was already in print. The 10-year sequence of events which Joseph spells out in his First Vision story simply will not fit into the span of time between 1824 and the 1830 publication date of the Book of Mormon.
How did the story of Mormon origins become so confused? Part of the answer is found in the fact that Joseph Smith himself told the story several different ways.
An Ever-Changing Story
In about 1832, Joseph Smith, began an account of the origin of the Mormon Church (the only one written in his own hand) that is considerably different from the official First Vision story he dictated some six years later. This 1832 account, which has been referred to as Joseph's strange account, was never finished and for many years remained inaccessible to the public. It was published in BYU Studies, Spring 1969, pp. 278ff, and is also included in Dean C. Jessee's The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984, pp. 14ff).
In this version Joseph presented himself as a boy who, between the ages of twelve and fifteen, was a committed and perceptive reader of the Bible. He claimed that it was his study of the Scriptures which led him to understand that all the denominations were wrong. He wrote:
by searching the Scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament (Personal Writings, p. 5).
Six years later, when Joseph set forth his official First Vision account, he changed his story and no longer claimed his personal Bible study led him to the conclusion that all churches were wrong. Instead, he said that the Father and the Son told him that all the churches were wrong and he must join none of them. (Ironically, Mormon historians have documented the fact that Joseph Smith joined a Methodist church class in 1828, which would seem to constitute a direct violation of the claimed divine command "to join none of them." He claimed to be surprised by this announcement, for he added parenthetically, "at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong." Yet, in stating this, Joseph contradicted himself, for a few paragraphs earlier in this same account he recorded: "I often said to myself . . . Who of all these parties are right; or are they all wrong together?" The statement — "it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong" — appears in the original manuscript (see BYU Studies cited previously, p. 290), and in the first (1851) edition of the Pearl of Great Price. This phrase, which contradicts Joseph's earlier statement, was edited out of later editions of LDS scriptures until sometime after 1980, when it was inserted back into English language editions of the PGP. It was also omitted from some foreign language editions, including Spanish and Portuguese, until sometime after 1989 when it was inserted in those as well.
Even without this contradiction the 1838 official account conflicts with the 1832 version. In the 1832 account it is Joseph's Bible reading that stirs him to seek God, while in the 1838 story it is a (non-existent 1820) Palmyra-area revival that motivates him.
In the 1832 version Joseph only mentions the appearance of Christ, while in the 1838 rendition he claims both the Father and the Son appeared. In the 1832 account he already knows all the churches are wrong, while in the 1838 story he says it never occurred to him that all were wrong until the two deities informed him of this fact.
Joseph's mother, likewise, knew nothing of a vision of the Father and the Son in the Sacred Grove. In her unpublished account she traces the origin of Mormonism to a bedroom visit by an angel. Joseph at the time had been pondering which of all the churches were the true one. The angel told him "there is not a true church on Earth, No, not one" (First draft of Lucy Smith's History, p. 46, LDS Church Archives).
Still another version of the First Vision was published in 1834-35 in the periodical, Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate (Vol. 1, pp. 42, 78). This account was written by LDS leader Oliver Cowdery with the help of Joseph Smith. It tells how a revival in 1823 caused 17-year-old Joseph Smith to be stirred up on the subject of religion. According to Cowdery, Joseph desired to know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion (p. 78). He also prayed if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him and a manifestation in some way that his sins were forgiven (Ibid., 78, 79). According to this account, an angel (not a deity) appeared in Joseph's bedroom to tell him his sins were forgiven.
The conflicts produced by this account are numerous. First, the date of the revival is given as 1823, instead of 1820. Second, if Joseph had already had a vision of the Father and the Son in 1820, why did he need to pray in 1823 about whether or not a Supreme being existed? Third, when the revival prompts him to pray, the personage that appears is an angel, not the Father or Son. Fourth, the message of the angel is one of forgiveness of sins, rather than an announcement that all the churches were wrong.
These widely divergent accounts raise serious questions about the authenticity of Joseph Smith's First Vision story. Different people may have varying views of the same event, but when one person tells contradictory stories about the same event, we are justified in questioning both the person and the truthfulness of the story.
Persecution Or Acceptance?
Today's First Vision story not only runs into trouble with the historically verified date of the Palmyra, New York revival and with Joseph's earlier accounts of the event, it also conflicts with what we know about his early years in Palmyra. In his official version Joseph Smith claims he was persecuted by all the churches in his area "because I continued to affirm that I had seen a vision." However, this is contradicted by one of Joseph's associates at the time. Orsamus Turner, an apprentice printer in Palmyra until 1822, was in a juvenile debating club with Joseph Smith. He recalled that Joseph, "after catching a spark of Methodism . . . became a very passable exhorter in evening meetings" (History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase, 1851, p. 214). Thus, instead of being opposed and persecuted as his 1838 account claims, young Joseph was welcomed and allowed to exhort during the Methodist's evening preaching. This point is supported by Brigham Young University historian and LDS bishop, James B. Allen. Allen found virtually nothing to support Joseph's claim that he told the First Vision story immediately after it happened in 1820, and suffered persecution as a result, or even that Joseph was telling the story ten years later:
There is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830s Joseph Smith was telling the story in public. At least if he were telling it, no one seemed to consider it important enough to have recorded it at the time, and no one was criticizing him for it. Not even in his own history did Joseph Smith mention being criticized in this period for telling the story of the First Vision ("The Significance of Joseph Smith's First Vision in Mormon Thought", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p. 30).
Conclusion
From all available lines of evidence, therefore, Joseph's 1838 official rendition of his First Vision story appears to be myth not history:
There was no revival anywhere in the Palmyra-Manchester, New York area in 1820.
The events as told by Joseph Smith will not fit into the time period between the 1824 revival and the 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon.
Joseph was welcomed, not persecuted by the Methodists.
New Light on Joseph Smith's "First Vision"
In his 1832 account Joseph said it was by personal Bible study that he determined all the churches were apostate, while in his 1838 account he said it "never entered into my heart that all were wrong."
In his 1832 version Joseph claimed to see only a vision of Christ and in his 1835 version Joseph told of the visit of an angel, while in the 1838 story the message came from the Father and the Son.
No one knew of today's version of the First Vision until after Joseph dictated it in 1838, and no published source mentions it until 1842 (Ibid., pp. 30ff).
The conflicts and contradictions brought to light by the preceding historical evidence demonstrate that the First Vision story, as presented by the Mormon church today, must be regarded as the invention of Joseph Smith's highly imaginative mind. The historical facts and Joseph's own words discredit it.
If there is even a remote chance that this pivotal point in the Mormon story is a fabrication, what Latter-day Saint would not want any and all of the pertinent facts?
Friday, December 01, 2006
The Mormon Conundrum of Adam as God
So, here it is, the teachings of the prophet Brigham Young. Either Mormons believe he was an inspired, divinely chosen leader, and that his teachings are true, or they have to admit that the church has deviated from the original restoration plan brought forth by Joseph Smith. What was once "true" to the early Saints HAS to still be true for the current members, otherwise it cannot be called a restored church. If revelations are received, "line upon line", they should not be discounted by later prophets and denounced from the pulpit as a false teaching. If members have reason to doubt that Brigham Young was teaching the correct principles and bringing "true" revelations to the faithful members, then EVERY prophet since then should be subject to the same scrutiny. It IS possible that these "prophets" are just MEN with no "divine authority" or "keys". They are just doing their best to maintain the base, and sway the members away from contradictory teachings, and things that may take away their "testimony". The only way to keep the members from falling away is to restrict their access to historical, factual evidence that would reveal past teachings and past actions of all the previous prophets in order to paint a picture of harmony, order, and correct restoration of the "one true church". The Mormons of today followed Brigham Young out of Nauvoo and into Utah, believing everything he taught and giving him authority to determine their spiritual path. To say now that the man was mistaken on many principles and taught false doctrine is equivalent to saying he couldn't have been a prophet at all. And if that is the stance of today's current leadership in the church, then they cannot claim to have the unbroken chain of priesthood authority, and the church is NOT a restored church at all. Joseph Smith is also guilty of bringing about false teachings and doctrine, but that is a post for another time.
Bottom line: Mormons either believe that Brigham Young was a prophet, or they cannot call themselves "true" Saints. The "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" really DO believe that Brigham Young was a prophet. They practice polygamy TO THIS DAY, they believe in Blood Atonement, they are real adherents to the "restored" gospel. They never fell away from Brigham Young's teachings, and they refer to the LDS as a "splinter group".
So, if you can't "get behind" Brigham Young's teachings, then you can't really be sure that all the teachings of past prophets or even current ones are correct doctrine of the 'restored' church. And without that assurance, why should you believe that anything about the LDS is true without doing the research yourself?
In this post you will further understand why this is an important issue to understand from Mormonism’s past. It is a clear doctrinal shift which clearly shows the lack of inspiration and doctrinal clarity which is so prevalent in the Mormon church.
(Original Author: H. Michael Marquardt)
Outline Relating to the LDS Temple Endowment and the Teachings of Brigham Young
Creations Gods:
On 8-9 March 1842 Joseph Smith worked on his Book of Abraham, "and they organized and formed, (that is, the Gods,) the heavens and the earth" (Times and Seasons 3 [15 March 1842]:720, words rearranged in Abraham 4:1).
Who or how many Gods were involved is not known for sure. In the Nauvoo temple endowment as organized by Brigham Young the Gods were identified as three in number, that is, Eloheem [Elohim], Jehovah [also spelled Yahovah] and Michael. Michael had been previously identified by Joseph Smith as "Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days" (LDS D&C 27:11, added to early text in 1835).
Characters in the Nauvoo Temple
Nauvoo Temple Organization: 10-13 December 1845:
H. C. Kimball presides as Eloheem,
Orson Hyde as Jehovah and
George A. Smith as Michael
(Heber C. Kimball Journal kept by William Clayton, entry of 10 Dec. 1845, LDS archives)
The following persons officiating
Orson Hyde as Eloheem
Orson Spencer as Jehovah
George A Smith as Michael
later that day -
Heber C. Kimball acting as Eloheem
George A. Smith as Jehovah
Orson Hyde as Michael
(Heber C. Kimball Journal, entry of 11 Dec. 1845)
Pres[ident] Young acting as Eloheem
P.P. Pratt as Jehovah
Orson Hyde as Michael
"During the whole of the three days already spent in the endowment, President Brigham Young presided and dictated the ordinances and also took an active part in nearly every instance except when entirely overcome by fatigue through his constant labors to forward the work." (Ibid., 12 Dec. 1845)
"Last evening an arrangement was made establishing better order in conducting the endowment. Under this order it is the providence of Eloheem, Jehovah and Michael to create the world . . ." (Ibid., entry of 13 Dec. 1845).
President Brigham Young's Teaching
Here we have the name/titles of the three creation Gods. Except for Michael the identities of Eloheem and Jehovah are not spelled out.
Brigham Young mentioned, "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael . . ." (Journal of Discourses 1:51, 9 April 1852).
In this same discourse (as published) President Brigham Young said:
"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. . . . the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal" (Journal of Discourses 1:50, emphasis in original).
What we have are three creation Gods, Eloheim, Yahovah [spelled that way in the Endowment House records] and Michael. They are not the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) but a different trinity. They are like a LDS priesthood presidency of three (Elder's Quorum, High Priest Quorum, First Presidency, Mission Presidency, Temple Presidency). But there are now two trinities, the regular Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the creation Gods Eloheim, Yahovah (Jehovah) and Michael.
Brigham Young taught that in order to create a world a man would have received his exaltation as a God. At a Special Conference held on 28 August 1852 he explained it as an important key to understanding:
"After men have got their exaltations and their crowns--have become Gods, even the sons of God--are made Kings of kings and Lord 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" (Journal of Discourses 6:275).
Some individual journals mention the teachings of Brigham Young about Adam/Michael but not all church members believed in Adam being God or understood what he was talking about. Apostle Orson Pratt opposed the doctrine from 1852-1868. It is evident that if the interpretation of the creation Gods was taught in the Nauvoo Temple like Brigham Young was explaining then Pratt probably would have accepted it. But it appears to have first been publicly taught in April 1852.
At the church conference held on 8 October 1854 Brigham Young preached a powerful discourse that was not published until the 1970s. Warren Foote recorded, "8th We went to conference again. President B. Young delivered an interesting discourse concerning Adam's being the father of our spirits as well as bodies" (Warren Foote Journal, 8 Oct. 1854, original in LDS archives, typed copy).
Joseph Lee Robinson also recorded what Brigham Young taught: Oct. 6th. Attended conference, a very interesting conference, for at this meeting President Brigham Young said thus, that Adam and Eve were the names of the first man and woman of every earth that was ever organized and that Adam and Eve were the natural father and mother of every spirit that comes to this planet, or that received tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brother and sisters, and that Adam was God, or Eternal Father" (Joseph Lee Robinson Journal, 6-8 Oct. 1854, LDS archives, typed copy).
This "Discourse by Pres. Brigham Young Oct 8th 1854" (in LDS archives) has been published in an edited version. A copy is in The Essential Brigham Young (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 86-103. A few quotes from the discourse:
But let us turn our attention to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father of our spirits (93). The God and Father [of] our Lord Jesus Christ is the Father of our spirits (94). I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor to his calling and Priesthood; and obeyed his Master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did the same, and they lived, and died upon an earth, and then were resurrected again to Immortality and Eternal Life (96). Our spirits and the spirits of all the human family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve (97). Adam planted the Garden of Eden, and he with his wife Eve partook of the fruit of this Earth, until their systems were charged with the nature of Earth, and then they could beget bodies, for their spiritual children (98) I tell you, when you see your Father in the Heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bear your spirit, you will see Mother Eve (99).
At the School of the Prophets in June 1871 President Brigham Young taught,
"Elohim, Yahova & Michael, were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth & Michael became Adam" (Joseph F. Smith Journal, 17 June 1871, LDS archives).
So this would mean:
Elohim = Father of Yahovah
Yahovah = Son of Elohim
Michael = Grandson of Elohim = Adam = God the Father
Jesus would be the only begotten son of Michael/Adam. This may explain the words of President Young made in 1862:
"The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with their Grandfather, and their children were more or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather . . ." (Journal of Discourses 9:148, 12 Jan. 1862).
Brigham Young died in August 1877. At the October 1880 conference the Pearl of Great Price was accepted as the fourth standard work of the church. In various publications on gospel topics many writers emphasized that Adam and Eve were spirits before earth life. They used the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price (portion dictated in 1830) as their basis. This was more in line with Orson Pratt's position. There were church members who believed what President Young taught and others who had views based upon LDS scriptures. James E. Talmage wrote his book Articles of Faith which was published by the church.
Finally in June 1916 Talmage wrote the official statement on The Father and the Son which was accepted by the First Presidency and the Twelve as the position of the church on the Godhead. In essence Adam/Michael as God, the Father of our spirits and Father of Jesus Christ as taught by President Brigham Young was replaced by Elohim as God and Father. This statement has the following relating to Elohim:
The purport of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title "Elohim," is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race.
Prior to 1916 the interpretation of who the creation Gods were (as described by President Young) gradually changed. There was confusion over this issue for many years. It appears that during the Presidency of Joseph F. Smith the Michael in the temple endowment ceremony changed from being an exalted God who helped create the world to being a spirit personage "God." Elohim became God with Jesus Christ becoming the Jehovah creation God. So part of Brigham Young's teaching expressed in his April 1852 discourse to priesthood members is rejected and part is accepted. At the time when President Young preached he was considered inspired. The conference minutes stated that the Holy Ghost rested upon Brigham Young at the time.
Current LDS Godhead: Father = Elohim = God the Father
Son = Jehovah = Jesus Christ
Holy Ghost = spirit personage
Those who go through the endowment ceremony are taught that three Gods planned and organized the world and all things on it. Two of these Gods, that is, Jehovah and Michael were organizers under the direction of the third, Elohim. When the Gods had pronounced the world good, Michael, now designated as Adam, with Eve, was to commence the procreation of the children of men. Adam was given dominion over all the earth.
In the endowment ceremony men must follow Adam, and women follow Eve through all the priesthood ordinances if they are to become Gods. They are promised, if they are faithful, that they can become as Adam and Eve and create their own worlds and beget their own spiritual children to inhabit them. This is what Brigham Young was teaching.
Currently in the church it is taught, after the change in the creation Gods, not to believe that the above applies to Adam. Church leaders teach that men can become Gods by following Adam but we are not to believe that Adam attained to that position.
BRIGHAM YOUNG NEVER CALLED IT A "THEORY"!!!
However acting in his official capacity as "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" he DID say:
"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the 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 . . ."--Brigham Young, Discourse, June 8, 1873, reported in Deseret News, June 18, 1873, pp. 308-09. (emphasis added)
Calling it the Adam-God "Theory" is a mopologist trick to make it appear that BY was just maybe wondering out loud.
When the "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" stands before the body of the church in an official meeting and states a "doctrine" which "God revealed to me" he is most definitely "acting as a prophet." This isn't the same thing as Gordon B. Hinckley saying "pass the salt."
A favorite question to ask Mormons is: "When Brigham Young had the Adam-God doctrine included as part of the Endowment ceremony was he just expressing a personal opinion?"
QUOTES BY THE LIVING PROPHETS
Now I would like to express another thought which is vital to us one and all. President Brigham Young has been unjustly condemned for a statement that he made to the effect that Adam is our God and the only one with whom we have to do. President Young's statement has been unmercifully condemned, but what he said is a righteous principle and in full accord with the doctrines of the kingdom of God. It is the doctrine of primogeniture in the kingdom of God and a glorious principle when it is fully and clearly understood....
Thus we learn by virtue of the law of primogeniture, that all who are saved in the kingdom of God will be subject to Adam, for by divine appointment he holds these keys under the direction of Jesus Christ. I might carry this law a little further. According to the gospel of Jesus Christ, Joseph Fielding Smith will be subject to his father, and his father to his father in the family of God; and so it will go back from the end to the beginning; and we will all be obedient to Adam whom the Prophet Joseph Smith declared holds the keys of salvation for his posterity who are redeemed, but "under the counsel and direction of the Holy One," who is Jesus Christ, who stands at the head because he is the Redeemer of the world, who gave us, through his atonement, the resurrection and eternal life if we will only repent and keep his laws and commandments --President Joseph Fielding Smith --Conference Report --April 1965 page 10-11
....Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.
-- President Spencer W. Kimball--Conference Report --Priesthood Session--October 1976 page 115
Now as we conclude this general conference, let us all give heed to what was said to us. Let us assume the counsel given applies to us, to me. Let us hearken to those we sustain as prophets and seers, as well as the other brethren, as if our eternal life depended upon it, because it does!
--President Spencer W. Kimball --Conference Report --April 1978 page 117
Here is the advice in a nut shell: never mind, it could lead to apostasy, sin, follow the prophet, you have enough knowledge for your salvation, get back to work. Sound Familiar?
Bottom line: Mormons either believe that Brigham Young was a prophet, or they cannot call themselves "true" Saints. The "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" really DO believe that Brigham Young was a prophet. They practice polygamy TO THIS DAY, they believe in Blood Atonement, they are real adherents to the "restored" gospel. They never fell away from Brigham Young's teachings, and they refer to the LDS as a "splinter group".
So, if you can't "get behind" Brigham Young's teachings, then you can't really be sure that all the teachings of past prophets or even current ones are correct doctrine of the 'restored' church. And without that assurance, why should you believe that anything about the LDS is true without doing the research yourself?
As posted at the RFM Board: (acknowledgments to Swedeboy, Baura, and SusieQ)
In this post you will further understand why this is an important issue to understand from Mormonism’s past. It is a clear doctrinal shift which clearly shows the lack of inspiration and doctrinal clarity which is so prevalent in the Mormon church.
(Original Author: H. Michael Marquardt)
Outline Relating to the LDS Temple Endowment and the Teachings of Brigham Young
Creations Gods:
On 8-9 March 1842 Joseph Smith worked on his Book of Abraham, "and they organized and formed, (that is, the Gods,) the heavens and the earth" (Times and Seasons 3 [15 March 1842]:720, words rearranged in Abraham 4:1).
Who or how many Gods were involved is not known for sure. In the Nauvoo temple endowment as organized by Brigham Young the Gods were identified as three in number, that is, Eloheem [Elohim], Jehovah [also spelled Yahovah] and Michael. Michael had been previously identified by Joseph Smith as "Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days" (LDS D&C 27:11, added to early text in 1835).
Characters in the Nauvoo Temple
Nauvoo Temple Organization: 10-13 December 1845:
H. C. Kimball presides as Eloheem,
Orson Hyde as Jehovah and
George A. Smith as Michael
(Heber C. Kimball Journal kept by William Clayton, entry of 10 Dec. 1845, LDS archives)
The following persons officiating
Orson Hyde as Eloheem
Orson Spencer as Jehovah
George A Smith as Michael
later that day -
Heber C. Kimball acting as Eloheem
George A. Smith as Jehovah
Orson Hyde as Michael
(Heber C. Kimball Journal, entry of 11 Dec. 1845)
Pres[ident] Young acting as Eloheem
P.P. Pratt as Jehovah
Orson Hyde as Michael
"During the whole of the three days already spent in the endowment, President Brigham Young presided and dictated the ordinances and also took an active part in nearly every instance except when entirely overcome by fatigue through his constant labors to forward the work." (Ibid., 12 Dec. 1845)
"Last evening an arrangement was made establishing better order in conducting the endowment. Under this order it is the providence of Eloheem, Jehovah and Michael to create the world . . ." (Ibid., entry of 13 Dec. 1845).
President Brigham Young's Teaching
Here we have the name/titles of the three creation Gods. Except for Michael the identities of Eloheem and Jehovah are not spelled out.
Brigham Young mentioned, "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael . . ." (Journal of Discourses 1:51, 9 April 1852).
In this same discourse (as published) President Brigham Young said:
"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. . . . the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal" (Journal of Discourses 1:50, emphasis in original).
What we have are three creation Gods, Eloheim, Yahovah [spelled that way in the Endowment House records] and Michael. They are not the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) but a different trinity. They are like a LDS priesthood presidency of three (Elder's Quorum, High Priest Quorum, First Presidency, Mission Presidency, Temple Presidency). But there are now two trinities, the regular Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the creation Gods Eloheim, Yahovah (Jehovah) and Michael.
Brigham Young taught that in order to create a world a man would have received his exaltation as a God. At a Special Conference held on 28 August 1852 he explained it as an important key to understanding:
"After men have got their exaltations and their crowns--have become Gods, even the sons of God--are made Kings of kings and Lord 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" (Journal of Discourses 6:275).
Some individual journals mention the teachings of Brigham Young about Adam/Michael but not all church members believed in Adam being God or understood what he was talking about. Apostle Orson Pratt opposed the doctrine from 1852-1868. It is evident that if the interpretation of the creation Gods was taught in the Nauvoo Temple like Brigham Young was explaining then Pratt probably would have accepted it. But it appears to have first been publicly taught in April 1852.
At the church conference held on 8 October 1854 Brigham Young preached a powerful discourse that was not published until the 1970s. Warren Foote recorded, "8th We went to conference again. President B. Young delivered an interesting discourse concerning Adam's being the father of our spirits as well as bodies" (Warren Foote Journal, 8 Oct. 1854, original in LDS archives, typed copy).
Joseph Lee Robinson also recorded what Brigham Young taught: Oct. 6th. Attended conference, a very interesting conference, for at this meeting President Brigham Young said thus, that Adam and Eve were the names of the first man and woman of every earth that was ever organized and that Adam and Eve were the natural father and mother of every spirit that comes to this planet, or that received tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brother and sisters, and that Adam was God, or Eternal Father" (Joseph Lee Robinson Journal, 6-8 Oct. 1854, LDS archives, typed copy).
This "Discourse by Pres. Brigham Young Oct 8th 1854" (in LDS archives) has been published in an edited version. A copy is in The Essential Brigham Young (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 86-103. A few quotes from the discourse:
But let us turn our attention to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father of our spirits (93). The God and Father [of] our Lord Jesus Christ is the Father of our spirits (94). I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor to his calling and Priesthood; and obeyed his Master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did the same, and they lived, and died upon an earth, and then were resurrected again to Immortality and Eternal Life (96). Our spirits and the spirits of all the human family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve (97). Adam planted the Garden of Eden, and he with his wife Eve partook of the fruit of this Earth, until their systems were charged with the nature of Earth, and then they could beget bodies, for their spiritual children (98) I tell you, when you see your Father in the Heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bear your spirit, you will see Mother Eve (99).
At the School of the Prophets in June 1871 President Brigham Young taught,
"Elohim, Yahova & Michael, were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth & Michael became Adam" (Joseph F. Smith Journal, 17 June 1871, LDS archives).
So this would mean:
Elohim = Father of Yahovah
Yahovah = Son of Elohim
Michael = Grandson of Elohim = Adam = God the Father
Jesus would be the only begotten son of Michael/Adam. This may explain the words of President Young made in 1862:
"The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with their Grandfather, and their children were more or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather . . ." (Journal of Discourses 9:148, 12 Jan. 1862).
Brigham Young died in August 1877. At the October 1880 conference the Pearl of Great Price was accepted as the fourth standard work of the church. In various publications on gospel topics many writers emphasized that Adam and Eve were spirits before earth life. They used the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price (portion dictated in 1830) as their basis. This was more in line with Orson Pratt's position. There were church members who believed what President Young taught and others who had views based upon LDS scriptures. James E. Talmage wrote his book Articles of Faith which was published by the church.
Finally in June 1916 Talmage wrote the official statement on The Father and the Son which was accepted by the First Presidency and the Twelve as the position of the church on the Godhead. In essence Adam/Michael as God, the Father of our spirits and Father of Jesus Christ as taught by President Brigham Young was replaced by Elohim as God and Father. This statement has the following relating to Elohim:
The purport of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title "Elohim," is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race.
Prior to 1916 the interpretation of who the creation Gods were (as described by President Young) gradually changed. There was confusion over this issue for many years. It appears that during the Presidency of Joseph F. Smith the Michael in the temple endowment ceremony changed from being an exalted God who helped create the world to being a spirit personage "God." Elohim became God with Jesus Christ becoming the Jehovah creation God. So part of Brigham Young's teaching expressed in his April 1852 discourse to priesthood members is rejected and part is accepted. At the time when President Young preached he was considered inspired. The conference minutes stated that the Holy Ghost rested upon Brigham Young at the time.
Current LDS Godhead: Father = Elohim = God the Father
Son = Jehovah = Jesus Christ
Holy Ghost = spirit personage
Those who go through the endowment ceremony are taught that three Gods planned and organized the world and all things on it. Two of these Gods, that is, Jehovah and Michael were organizers under the direction of the third, Elohim. When the Gods had pronounced the world good, Michael, now designated as Adam, with Eve, was to commence the procreation of the children of men. Adam was given dominion over all the earth.
In the endowment ceremony men must follow Adam, and women follow Eve through all the priesthood ordinances if they are to become Gods. They are promised, if they are faithful, that they can become as Adam and Eve and create their own worlds and beget their own spiritual children to inhabit them. This is what Brigham Young was teaching.
Currently in the church it is taught, after the change in the creation Gods, not to believe that the above applies to Adam. Church leaders teach that men can become Gods by following Adam but we are not to believe that Adam attained to that position.
BRIGHAM YOUNG NEVER CALLED IT A "THEORY"!!!
However acting in his official capacity as "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" he DID say:
"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the 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 . . ."--Brigham Young, Discourse, June 8, 1873, reported in Deseret News, June 18, 1873, pp. 308-09. (emphasis added)
Calling it the Adam-God "Theory" is a mopologist trick to make it appear that BY was just maybe wondering out loud.
When the "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" stands before the body of the church in an official meeting and states a "doctrine" which "God revealed to me" he is most definitely "acting as a prophet." This isn't the same thing as Gordon B. Hinckley saying "pass the salt."
A favorite question to ask Mormons is: "When Brigham Young had the Adam-God doctrine included as part of the Endowment ceremony was he just expressing a personal opinion?"
QUOTES BY THE LIVING PROPHETS
Now I would like to express another thought which is vital to us one and all. President Brigham Young has been unjustly condemned for a statement that he made to the effect that Adam is our God and the only one with whom we have to do. President Young's statement has been unmercifully condemned, but what he said is a righteous principle and in full accord with the doctrines of the kingdom of God. It is the doctrine of primogeniture in the kingdom of God and a glorious principle when it is fully and clearly understood....
Thus we learn by virtue of the law of primogeniture, that all who are saved in the kingdom of God will be subject to Adam, for by divine appointment he holds these keys under the direction of Jesus Christ. I might carry this law a little further. According to the gospel of Jesus Christ, Joseph Fielding Smith will be subject to his father, and his father to his father in the family of God; and so it will go back from the end to the beginning; and we will all be obedient to Adam whom the Prophet Joseph Smith declared holds the keys of salvation for his posterity who are redeemed, but "under the counsel and direction of the Holy One," who is Jesus Christ, who stands at the head because he is the Redeemer of the world, who gave us, through his atonement, the resurrection and eternal life if we will only repent and keep his laws and commandments --President Joseph Fielding Smith --Conference Report --April 1965 page 10-11
....Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.
-- President Spencer W. Kimball--Conference Report --Priesthood Session--October 1976 page 115
Now as we conclude this general conference, let us all give heed to what was said to us. Let us assume the counsel given applies to us, to me. Let us hearken to those we sustain as prophets and seers, as well as the other brethren, as if our eternal life depended upon it, because it does!
--President Spencer W. Kimball --Conference Report --April 1978 page 117
Here is the advice in a nut shell: never mind, it could lead to apostasy, sin, follow the prophet, you have enough knowledge for your salvation, get back to work. Sound Familiar?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
